Myself



Couldn't resist!!

The F3HP would still be Nikon's flagship camera if Canon never existed...

Seriously, it would be Nokon, (Nikon would be named differently if canon didn't exist)

If I wanted medium format that's what I'd be persuing now, so Nikon is really the only other for me....

EB-1 wrote:
burningheart wrote:
I picked other because way back when I got my first SLR it was Canon, if it didn't exist who knows what camera I would have started with Olympus, Nikon, Pentax,.....

Back when I got my first SLR, it was almost a Topcon instead of a Nikon.
I wonder how many remember those SLRs?

EBH

I did shoot with Topcon Super D instead of Nikon (being of a contrary nature). I went to Canon F1 when it became clear that Topcon was not going to keep up with lens technology.

They seriously feel like you could run them over with a car and have no trouble operating them afterwards.

Donna Summer concert in '75. I dropped a Super DM from the stage six feet to the concrete floor. The pentaprism cover was dented, but otherwise the camera continued to work perfectly.

Though I doubt either one would be as advanced if they didn't have Canon as a competitor.

This could be true. Canon's edge has always been electronics--even back in the FTb and F-1 days. If there had not been some committed camera company so heavily pursuing electronics R&D, we might not be at this stage today. Without Canon's work with Kodak and then the 30D, we might still be in a world high-priced, low resolution DSLRs. Sony? I dunno.

if Canon hadnot existed, there is no CMOS for any Nikons. And there would be no today's Nikon.

It would definitely be Nikon. I won't consider the insufficient rez 12mp FF bodies, but I'd probably save up and get the D3x and live with the 5 fps. But, could you imagine how expensive Nikons would be if there were no Canon? Best not to think about it.

No option for Pentax?


It would be Pentax or Nikon.

Leica M

The question can be interpreted in a few basic ways:
1. If Canon went out of business and their existing cameras were no longer supported, what would you switch to?
2. If Canon never existed, but somehow (!) Nikon and all the other manufacturers were producing exactly what they in fact are now, what would you shoot?
3. If Canon had never existed, what do you think would be the state of camera technology, and what brand would most likely offer what you want under those circumstances?

The third option seems like total guess work to me, but if we wanted to hypothesize the first or second (#1 exceedingly unlikely and #2 virtually impossible) scenario, the choices would be pretty clear. For me it would be Nikon.

Nikon ... absolutely no doubt in my mind regardless of how OP's question is interpreted.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

It would be Nikon. It is not only because of Canon lenses that I do not seriously think about Nikon.

I would go Nikon in a heart beat and if I could afford it I would be their now Also like Mr mfurman says it's the glass. I was with Nikon about two years ago and loved the camera.

I would be shooting medium format until the D3x.

sony with the zeiss autofocus lenses.

Sporting clays with a 12 gauge.

I am the opposite of you - I shot Canon MF film and switched to Nikon for digital. I love it and haven't looked back...

David - an Atlanta Nikonian


RafalA wrote:
Shot Nikon film, loved it. So, if there was no Canon, I'd be shooting Nikon digital.

If Canon just simply went away, that doesn't mean that my Canon gear would automatically stop working. I'd simply keep on using it as long as it would last me or until Canon sells off the camera technology to another company that would continue the EF mount in bodies (think Minolta to Sony).

If I found myself in a situation of where I had to change mounts, I'd most likely go with Nikon, as my goal to own a FF camera would still remain. I might would consider Sony FF, but Nikon has a better selection of lenses (at least ones you can get new) and accesories (one of the reasons I switched from Pentax to Canon to begin with).

This type of question seems to come up somewhat often among Pentax types, but this is the first time that I've seen it come up in a Canon-related forum.

Heather

Pentax.

If digital cameras were at the level that they are at now, I'd either be shooting whatever was the cheapest when I started, or Nikon.

If digital camera development had been retarded because Canon wasn't around to nurture the market's growth, I may have tried out Medium format and purchased a cheap Mamiya set.

either brownie or instamatic

prh