If it assumes knowing what I know now, and shooting what I shoot now, it would be pretty much what I have now:
Canon for AF & tele work (70-200 and longer with a 1DX)
Leica M for everything else. And with the new M, it looks like the live view system will allow pretty easy use of longer and legacy lenses from virtually any brand, making it a pretty effective DSLR replacement for all purposes except when AF is highly valued.
Both choices are driven by lens selection and quality. As for Canon vs. Nikon, one consideration is how good CPS service and turnaround has become since they implemented the paid membership requirement. Lately I have heard too many bad accounts about Nikon's service practices, both in terms of turnaround and escalating costs. And I'm really loving the 1DX's AF (which I guess would also be the case for the 5DIII). At least for me, it's a higher priority than image sensor DR.
I would probably own a nice Nikon body if it were designed to take Canon EF lenses with full compatibility. I wouldn't get rid of my Canon bodies, just have another option to use as needed.
n0b0 wrote:
I'd still pick Canon. No point getting a "better" Nikon camera if I can't have my MP-E65, TS-E17L and 100-400L.
To name a few. They can't match the new superteles for weight or mfd (or price ), don't have super rotator TS-E lenses and their lens mount is the least flexible of all the mounts for third party glass. Most of their advantage was in DX glass and a few wides, also they had the sense to update their 24-70 and 70-200 earlier, but ours were definitely worth the wait.
When i came back to photography a few years ago i bought a Rebel 350D because it was the best low end DSLR on the market, and because Canon had a much better range of decent lenses than Nikon at a much more accessible price.
Today the low end DSLR choice is not so clear cut, but Canon still has the best range of affordable lenses. So i would buy Canon again. Nikon simply don't compete with the f/4's (17-40, 24-105, 70-200mm) that Canon offer, nor with their decently priced other lenses (50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS and others). My collection of glass would have cost vastly more if i was a Nikon shooter, and in the end it is the glass that enables my photography more than the camera.
The only change i would make is that i would go straight to an xxD rather than an xxxD. But thats hindsight - at the time i didn't know it would become a proper hobby and i didn't want to invest too much in something i might tire of quickly.
If I were starting from scratch, I would look at the lenses like I did when I restarted from scratch 8 years ago and decided for Canon. And the results would be the same because of:
- f/4 L zooms (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) which give a very good level of image quality without the weight of the f/2.8 zooms (very convenient for hiking);
- the 100-400 L, which still has no equivalent in the Nikon or Sony line ups (the 80-400 VR was already considered inadequate in AF speed and image quality in the long end; it is still there, as well as the 100-400 actually);
- some fantastic primes like the 135/2 L, which has no equivalent in the Nikon line up.
Btw, good question after all those whining threads (C did not provide this feature, N did etc).
Xavier Rival wrote:
If I were starting from scratch, I would look at the lenses like I did when I restarted from scratch 8 years ago and decided for Canon. And the results would be the same because of:
- f/4 L zooms (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) which give a very good level of image quality without the weight of the f/2.8 zooms (very convenient for hiking);
- the 100-400 L, which still has no equivalent in the Nikon or Sony line ups (the 80-400 VR was already considered inadequate in AF speed and image quality in the long end; it is still there, as well as the 100-400 actually);
- some fantastic primes like the 135/2 L, which has no equivalent in the Nikon line up.
Btw, good question after all those whining threads (C did not provide this feature, N did etc)....Show more →
I chose Canon many many years ago because their sensor was far superior to anything else on the market. Their lens collection and features were also the best that time.
Today, Nikon has surpassed, if not caught up with Canon. I will most likely than not choose Nikon. I will also recommend Nikon to any friend or relative who seeks advice in picking a system.
Ah dunno, many of us don't have to choose just one camera and/or system. I heart my 5D2/7D (& 10 lenses) and use them the most but I also own an Oly E-P3 (mirror-less) & 2 lenses, a Nikon SLR and 3 lenses as well as assorted film and digi P&S. It's nice to pick the best tool for the job and enjoy the best of several worlds.
Canon all the way. No other manufacturer has the vast used market, at great prices let it be said, of lenses and cameras! For me with limited budget that translates in better gear for the same money!
Sorry, several years ago we had 6 to 8 Megapixels and made wonderfull pictures. Today we have 20 and more Mpixels and it looks like that for some people its not possible to do the job. For me the FF 5DIII replaces fully my 6x7 film camera.
I am very happy with my 5DIII and with the Canon TS-E lenses. If you change to an other brand its still you who has to "make" the picture.
But I would really like the 5dmkiii instead of the mkii.
I'd also re-buy the 70-200mkii, 35L and 85 1.8.
And probably get the 24-70mkii and a TC 2xiii.
My mission now is to get a 5dmkiii and the TC. The 24-70 will have to wait. Also, I haven't found a camera that feels as good in the hand as the 5dmkiii wich plays a big part for me.
Tony B wrote:
+1. I would also add 400f5.6 for bang for buck.
Indeed. And there are quite a few Canon lenses with few or no equivalent (esp. when one wants several of those):
- 300/4 L IS (very popular for wildlife photography, esp with an APS sensor);
- MP 65;
- range of TS lenses (I am considering getting a wide TS in the year to come, Canon has several very nice choices, much more than with any other brand actually)...
Canon, for their lenses I like so much and no other system offers (85/1.2L, TS/E 17, TS/E 90) or that other manufacturers provide but where I like Canon's rendering and optical characteristic better (35/1.4, 70-200/2.8L IS). These are lenses I own and that fit with my personal style and photography. I am not a long super tele shooter, but if I was, the long whites would definitely be decision makers for the Canon system too. As much as I like the specs of the D800 (I wish the Canon high-res successor for my 1Ds-es mkII and MKIII were there), as much as like the direction the Sony system goes with their great Zeiss glass and EXmore sensor technology and full featured bodies, their cross compatibility with a compact NEX mirrorless system, I just would pick the Canon system again, because it fits my needs the best. And besides enjoying the EOSfun I trust Canon will follow interesting developments of the competition, even if we are impatient and feel sometimes behind because Canon lost leadership compared to just a decade behind us until about one and a half year back from now.
If was starting again with little knowledge (not that I have a lot now anyway!), and I was looking at the bodies available I'd go with Nikon. In fact when I did first order a DSLR it was a D90, however it was out of stock so I had a play with a 500D and got that instead (and saved some money).
Now though I would still stick with Canon due to the glass that I use and also ultimately want to own. There is also the much larger second hand market for Canon and I also find the online resources\forums for Canon more approachable and usable (some of the Nikon forums I was recommended are subscription for example). Ultimately though I would most likely be happy using a Canon, Nikon or Sony DSLR...
However much I'm tempted by the D800 and D600, I would probably stick with Canon if I were starting over. I really like their EF lens offering over their Nikkor counterpart. Plus, I'm very familiar with Canon's system since I have been using their camera bodies for roughly 9-10 years after I switched from Nikon.
Interesting results on mirror-less, so much noise and so many aggressive responders who seem ready to die for these cameras but not many would like to start with ...
If I was starting from scratch it would be mirrorless. I remember forever ago getting my first SLR and thinking how huge it was.
Knowing what I know now I'd stick with Canon. Two years from now the best bodies will be different. The best lenses won't, at least not very much. All that being said, I'd love an EOS mount D800.
), don't have super rotator TS-E lenses and their lens mount is the least flexible of all the mounts for third party glass. Most of their advantage was in DX glass and a few wides, also they had the sense to update their 24-70 and 70-200 earlier, but ours were definitely worth the wait.
I trust Canon will follow interesting developments of the competition, even if we are impatient and feel sometimes behind because Canon lost leadership compared to just a decade behind us until about one and a half year back from now.
