It's an interesting subject, certainly I think the vehemence with which people will defend "their" brand has increased considerably with the advent of digital photography and online communities such as FM.
Back in the film days (I still find it hard to believe that was less than 2 years ago for me) your film came out of the camera, went into the darkroom and your prints emerged from there. I think that additional step of isolation from the camera itself helped. These days you put your camera down next to your computer and a minute later the pictures are on your screen, there's no separation between the two - your brand is never far from your images, and i think that's helped cement an increased tribalism in photography (certainly the anonymity of the internet doesn't help.
I shoot almost exclusively with Nikon DSLRs these days, my old Olly OM kit and the Pentax 6x7 just gather dust. I went with Nikon because I preferred the "feel" of the cameras in my hand and for me, that outweighed the downside of missing out on the fast, wide primes and the f/4 zooms available to Canon shooters - but you make your choices, and you live with the limitations. As it stands I can do more with my D300 than I ever could with 35mm film, which for my purposes (making pictures) works out just fine.
At least we can all be thankful that posters here on FM are notably more level-headed than certain other photography communities on the net.
TigerLord wrote:
At least Canon and Nikkon shooters can, in some occasions, show each other respect.
I shoot with a Pentax K10D and am waiting to hear what Pentax has in the line for new bodies before upgrading to the K20D. Reason I shoot with Pentax is because when I first got it a little over a year ago, I never thought I would get into it so much, never expected to make money off photog, and was a very well reasonably priced SLR for entry level. I've been snobbed at a seminar once by a Nikkon user that had less experience than I had and shots that had nothing to impress.
Now I've invested in high end Pentax glass. I also have an extinct Voigtländer 125mm/f2.5 APO-Lanthar Macro lens with a K mount. Paid 700$, was offered 1600$ two weeks ago for it. I have probably spent 4000$ on lenses. Funny thing is, most of my lenses now are worth more than the body.
So what do I do? Sell all my gear to go Nikkon and Canon? Perhaps one day.
For now I'm stuck with the K10D and must endure the snobbing of Canon and Nikkon photogs ...Show more →
You will never get snobbed by me and I use a Nikon ,I bought my D2X simply because of the way it felt to hold it felt good in my hands as does my wifes K10D,
And ya don't need big dollar Pentax glass to get good pictures.
I started out years ago and had two different Nikon FILM bodies, they were nice cameras, but my last four DIGITAL bodies have been Canons and I like them just fine.
In my opinion (and a few others) Nikon has been playing catch-up to Canon ever since the first Digital SLR Camera came out and while the D3 looks pretty awesome, I just don't feel like switching all my Glass over.
And if Nikon really wants to go toe-to-toe with Canon, they need to be competitive with them BIG Glass (look at these B&H prices):
And lastly I have nothing against Nikon Shooters, I wish there was more of them...Lots MORE! - as then Canon would be forced to keep their prices down.... Come on Nikon, let's see that D3MKII
Who cares what camera the next guy has ,we should all be happy with what we have as they are all good cameras.
Why do people always feel the need to switch ....... I think I must be missing something
I have yet to have a customer ask what camera I use. They could care less. They ask if I can do this or that, or can I shoot this or that. All the customer does is agree to buy or not. I have used Nikon digital and sold pics and I now use Canon and sell pics. I think if I used Sony, Pentax, or any of the others I would sell pics. I chose my system on glass that suited my needs. It has reached the point in my opinion that there are several manufacturers that sell good camera. Canon and Nikon should be careful of hubris. That deal with Mark III was stupid, and those kinds of things will cost customers new and old.
I shot Nikon growing up, although I never had more than consumer-grade body and lenses. I though Nikon was the ultimate - had the brand cachet. I first looked at the D70 when going digital and didn't really consider Canon. Then as I read and researched started to covet some of the Canon lenses more. Canon had full-frame to upgrade to later (I didn't like the sound of a 'crop camera' when I learned DSLRs did this). ISO performance was way better on Canon at the time and megapixels clearly more (yeah, I know).
Now, who knows what I'd do. There are some nice Nikon lenses I like the look of, the D300, D700 and D3 are nice, nice, nice. I'll stay with Canon forever as I'm so invested but if Nikon had caught up a little faster...
Talent doesn't have a brand name. Four years ago there was a movie, Born into Brothels: Calcutta's Red Light Kids. The filmmakers gave the kids cameras (with no discussion of brand names - and they weren't thousands of dollars either) to shoot their lives. Many of the kids took beautiful photographs, one child showed actual brilliance. Do yourself a favor - rent the movie for some real world perspective of why photography is important. Then, the next time the flotsam and jetsam of one of these insipid discussions flares up on FM you can ignore it, get out and create something instead.
