Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing

I just returned from 3 weeks in Europe and Africa.
An informal impression is that Nikon dSLRs significantly outnumbered Canon
dSLRs on those of us touristos schlepping these heavy beasties. That really
surprised me as my impression has been that Canon outsells Nikon.
Most Nikon dSLRs had the 18-200 VR attached and were being carried by
Europeans.
Although I saw one older Japanese gentleman with an 800mm howitzer hanging
from his neck attached to his Canon.
I envied the lens but not the neck pain.
Despite my lifetime investment in higher end cameras and glass I am
seriously thinking that on my next trek I am only going to carry an image
stabilized long zoom EVF type that records in raw.
Who is going to see the pictures that most of us take anyway apart from
friends and family? Personally and aesthetically satisfying results can be
had without having to schlep pounds and pounds of gear . . .
It may be time to find my old Ebay account number and empty the closet.

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 09:28:24 -0700, "flambe" wrote:

I just returned from 3 weeks in Europe and Africa.
An informal impression is that Nikon dSLRs significantly outnumbered Canon
dSLRs on those of us touristos schlepping these heavy beasties. That really
surprised me as my impression has been that Canon outsells Nikon.
Most Nikon dSLRs had the 18-200 VR attached and were being carried by
Europeans.
Although I saw one older Japanese gentleman with an 800mm howitzer hanging
from his neck attached to his Canon.
I envied the lens but not the neck pain.
Despite my lifetime investment in higher end cameras and glass I am
seriously thinking that on my next trek I am only going to carry an image
stabilized long zoom EVF type that records in raw.
Who is going to see the pictures that most of us take anyway apart from
friends and family? Personally and aesthetically satisfying results can be
had without having to schlep pounds and pounds of gear . . .
It may be time to find my old Ebay account number and empty the closet.




You are not alone in this thinking and decision. I've read many threads in many
forums in the last few months with the same wave of thought.

The only reasons we bought SLRs was to be able to get accurate framing with the
through-the-lens viewfinder. Being able to see what the film will see,
especially important for macro photography. Also to get the increased ranges in
lenses that were eventually made available. The only reason we switched to 35mm
film was that film grain size decreased and ASA (ISO) ratings increased enough
to make it acceptable. Those advances made in the movie industry. (Don't most
people know that those sprocket holes on the sides of their 35mm film was
originally used to feed it through a movie-projector?) The only reason
interchangeable lens systems were made was because not enough zoom-range could
be fit into one single lens. Zoom lenses didn't even exist before then. You
usually had 3 lenses (if lucky), wide, normal, and short telephoto for
portraiture. Remember when a 210mm f.l. f/6.3 for an SLR was a WOW lens? This
was before multi-coating was invented, mind you. You were just happy to have
that much reach. All that flare only showed everyone how many lens elements you
had and how expensive your lens must be. You took pride in using that lens-flare
to your advantage. (Seen today as lens-flare editor plugins to try to recreate
the charming(?) defects from the "good ol' days".) People would laugh at that
today if it was promoted as a selling-point on a digital camera. Image quality,
while important, was more dependent on what film we happened to peel through the
back of the camera than the lens we could afford.

Before that we originally moved to SLRs for their smaller size and because we
didn't want to lug around that bellowed camera that didn't even allow us to
accurately see what was going to be on the film anymore, not since view-camera
days anyway. When it required a covered-wagon to haul everything needed to take
few dozen images per trip. It was always a matter of convenience and quality
plus versatility compromises. Today people are finding that we don't need the
interchangeable lenses anymore if enough zoom range comes all included in one
lens and the quality and light-grasp is kept high enough for our intended
purposes. You can get the quality plus the versatility that you need in a very
small compromise today. Nostalgia is nice, but not when it's holding you back.
Not many people today take a covered-wagon with three-dozen plates of glass and
all darkroom supplies to document their vacation, except as an interesting
exercise to experience true hardship firsthand. Why isn't the dSLR gang
clamoring for the return of the covered-wagon, view camera, flash-powder
explosions, and glass plates with film-grain large enough to see with the naked
eye? It was bigger, it cost more, it's more impressive, it must be better. :-)

What's that old saying? Don't live in the past, there's no future in it.

Remember holding next shot's flash-bulb in your mouth to wet the contacts before
putting it in the socket to make sure it would work? Then still keeping your
toes crossed (all fingers are in use, sorry) because you're not sure if it'll
fire this time? That was so much better than those silly and small xenon strobes
that they finally invented. I enjoyed picking the plastic-covered glass bits out
of my pockets after having sat down on 8 of them again. Yeah, give me that
again. I bet most people today don't even realize why it is called a "BULB"
shutter setting on their cameras and why, at one time, it was a required feature
to make the camera functional for flash photography.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:47:48 GMT, James Z wrote:

Not many people today take a covered-wagon with three-dozen
plates of glass and all darkroom supplies to document their vacation,
except as an interesting exercise to experience true hardship firsthand.

But you would if the camera ran the CHDK hack, Biddy!

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:01:39 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:47:48 GMT, James Z wrote:

Not many people today take a covered-wagon with three-dozen
plates of glass and all darkroom supplies to document their vacation,
except as an interesting exercise to experience true hardship firsthand.

But you would if the camera ran the CHDK hack, Biddy!

What's the matter? Did CHDK make 3 of your cameras into obsolete doorstops? What
a shame for you to have wasted that much money on dSLRs that can't do what a
CHDK P&S camera can do. You'll learn.Then again, judging by the droves of
misinformation in your posts I can see that might never happen. Enjoy your envy
and petty spite, it looks good on you. It adds a special something to that
personality that you never had.

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:23:42 GMT, Daniel Cartman hacked up:

But you would if the camera ran the CHDK hack, Biddy!

What's the matter? Did CHDK make 3 of your cameras into obsolete
doorstops? What a shame for you to have wasted that much money on
dSLRs that can't do what a CHDK P&S camera can do. You'll learn.
Then again, judging by the droves of misinformation in your posts I can
see that might never happen. Enjoy your envy and petty spite, it looks
good on you. It adds a special something to that personality that you
never had.

Your current nym (Cartman) was well chosen, sock puppet! Try to
not recycle it as quickly as you do with most of the others.

"flambe" wrote in message
...
I just returned from 3 weeks in Europe and Africa.
An informal impression is that Nikon dSLRs significantly outnumbered Canon
dSLRs on those of us touristos schlepping these heavy beasties. That
really surprised me as my impression has been that Canon outsells Nikon.
Most Nikon dSLRs had the 18-200 VR attached and were being carried by
Europeans.
Although I saw one older Japanese gentleman with an 800mm howitzer hanging
from his neck attached to his Canon.
I envied the lens but not the neck pain.
Despite my lifetime investment in higher end cameras and glass I am
seriously thinking that on my next trek I am only going to carry an image
stabilized long zoom EVF type that records in raw.
Who is going to see the pictures that most of us take anyway apart from
friends and family? Personally and aesthetically satisfying results can be
had without having to schlep pounds and pounds of gear . . .
It may be time to find my old Ebay account number and empty the closet.

I recently (a few months ago) got a Panny FZ50 for the same reasons you
mention, but did not ditch the 5D and three lenses. I carry the panny when I
want to travel light, and I really like it. As you note, most of the time
it's friends and family, and those pics are viewed either on line in a
reduced size or in print. In each of those situations, the Panny is fine.
It's not a substitute for the Canon, but for a lot of situations, like when
I'm on the bicycle or motorcycle, or just want to travel light, it's the way
to go.

Interesting observation re mix of Canon and Nikon. I am a professional
photographer and travel a lot so come across a wide range of professonal and
amateur photographers all over the world. My conclusion is that
professional photographers have been flocking from Nikon to Canon for most
if not all of the past ten years. Amateur photographers of long standing on
the other hand have mostly stuck with Nikon a name they have known or
trusted for many years. New amateur photographers using DSLR's seem more
likely to go Canon.

I changed fro Nikon to Canon in the mid 90's - Professionals for the last
ten years have credited Canon with better digital cameras (accuracy of
autofocus, accuracy of exposure, lowest noise and best range of lenses). It
will be interesting to see the real results of production models of the
Nikon D3 and Canon EOS1Ds III later this year (particularly WRT noise) -
Nikon may have caught up or passed Canon but it is too early to say. It is
certainly true that the DSLR technology is advancing very rapidly (too our
benefit).

The dark horse I believe is Sony with their Konica/Minolta technology and
their semiconductor (read sensor) technology - they may surprise us all.

Malcolm

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:14:48 GMT, Malcolm Smith wrote:

It is certainly true that the DSLR technology is advancing very
rapidly (too our benefit).

The dark horse I believe is Sony with their Konica/Minolta
technology and their semiconductor (read sensor) technology
- they may surprise us all.

Knowing Sony, we might hope that the surprise doesn't turn out to
be another of their ill conceived copy protection schemes.

Malcolm Smith wrote:
Interesting observation re mix of Canon and Nikon. I am a professional
photographer and travel a lot so come across a wide range of professonal and
amateur photographers all over the world. My conclusion is that
professional photographers have been flocking from Nikon to Canon for most
if not all of the past ten years. Amateur photographers of long standing on
the other hand have mostly stuck with Nikon a name they have known or
trusted for many years. New amateur photographers using DSLR's seem more
likely to go Canon.

This is true. Canon has been the pros choice, especially in terms of
optical quality and build quality of their professional lenses. Nikon
still leads in flash techonology.

I changed fro Nikon to Canon in the mid 90's - Professionals for the last
ten years have credited Canon with better digital cameras (accuracy of
autofocus, accuracy of exposure, lowest noise and best range of lenses).

Nikon's lens mount means that some lenses are simply not possible, and
others are compromises.

SMS wrote:
Malcolm Smith wrote:
Interesting observation re mix of Canon and Nikon. I am a
professional photographer and travel a lot so come across a wide range
of professonal and amateur photographers all over the world. My
conclusion is that professional photographers have been flocking from
Nikon to Canon for most if not all of the past ten years. Amateur
photographers of long standing on the other hand have mostly stuck
with Nikon a name they have known or trusted for many years. New
amateur photographers using DSLR's seem more likely to go Canon.

This is true. Canon has been the pros choice, especially in terms of
optical quality and build quality of their professional lenses. Nikon
still leads in flash techonology.

That's right. Canon "has been" in some areas, but things
have just changed. What's Canon's equiv. to the 14-24 f2.8
zoom?

I changed fro Nikon to Canon in the mid 90's - Professionals for the
last ten years have credited Canon with better digital cameras
(accuracy of autofocus, accuracy of exposure, lowest noise and best
range of lenses).

Nikon's lens mount means that some lenses are simply not possible, and
others are compromises.

Yeah - that old one. Of course don't let the fact that
Nikon *could* make an AFs 50mm f1.2 get in the way of a good
myth.