Need some Input

[Rainer SLP]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi,

As a student I bought my first camera and this was a Canon AE-1 because of my limited budget.

This camera convinced me because it was the first camera with fixed speed and the camera choose the right aperture for It. I learned to photograph with speed. Landscape on tripod low speed gives closed aperture = nice depth of field.
High speed gave open aperture = nice for moving objects.

Then I bought some FD lenses and so on and suddenly I had EOS A2e in my hands and did not think about any other brand. Well yes Nikon but price comparisons of the gear told me that I got the Canon cheaper and always some money was left for some additional gadget.

Sure after having the Canon gear I also took a look on Nikon and Leica, but with Nikon I always had the problem of understanding all those functions and Leica is laying in your hand like a Brick.

The Canon Bodies also have a huge quantity of functions but somehow I have managed to learn them intuitively. Good Menu, Few buttons to press, etc. Then I read the instruction manual.

Now I own 3 EOS, 1V, 1n RS and 1n and several L lenses, more and more changing all my lenses to IS and so on.

I do not doubt that if I as a student had bought a Nikon it would have been the same history. Then I surely would be a Nikon guy now.

Well that is why I use Canon. Somehow Canon gives me the impression of being a more risky company by introducing new technologies ahead of other companies.[/font]

[Pete]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Dixon,

There are strengths as well as weaknesses to both systems.   I myself went with canon because my first (an AE-1 Program) was a canon.  When I went autofocus, I stuck with canon.  When I went digital, I went with a D60 because of a fairly-sizable investment in glass and flash (sorry--couldn't resist the rhyme here).  I work part-time for a studio, and although the wedding photographers use Hassleblads, they are split when it comes to 35 mm systems.  Some use canon; some use nikon.  Both are happy with what they got.  I would suggest that either of these companies are ones to go with, since these two seem to be the leaders.  My only suggestion would then be to stay away from any other company such as Pentax or Sigma or Minolta, who do not seem to have the extensive choice of bodies, lenses, etc.

Good luck and enjoy!

Pete[/font]

[Dale_Cotton]

[font color=\'#000000\'](Your combination of forensic and now landscape reminds me of another photographer.)

Canon seems to have a history of innovations with Nikon playing catch-up, but as mentioned Canon's lead in autofocus and now image stabilization earned them a large chunk of the market in sports and wildlife. But pure landscape tends toward a different equipment bias than either the action features in Canon's bag of tricks or the frequent close-ups you may be accustomed to with Nikons.

In order to choose the right equipment you first need to establish the type(s) of output you want to focus on. Slide projection, large prints, smaller prints, and on-line are all valid options but each favours a different type of camera.

Then you need to make a choice between digital capture and film capture. Then, if you intend to do prints, between digital darkroom and wet darkroom.

I suggest you stick with your current kit for at least the first few months of doing landscape. 35mm is a perfectly valid choice for landscapes, unless you have opted to do prints larger than roughly 11x16. You might pick up a copy of John Shaw's Landscape Photography. (Incidentally, this guy has long made a living at landscape photography with Nikons, so sticking with your current brand is not an unreasonable option.) Even though aimed at the beginner, this book does a good job of giving a feel for the type of equipment decisions you'll need to make.

Finally, another great resource is the Nikon MF forum. Anyone who has been shooting Nikon since the F will feel right at home with these guys.

I happen to shoot Nikon too. An F2 and an F80 with the 35-70/f2.8 attached, Reala film, and digital darkroom gets me scads of colour prints up to 12x18 that are perfect for covering the cracks on my walls.[/font]

[Dan Sroka]

[font color=\'#000000\']Good advice from everyone. I just switched to Nikon from Minolta for digital SLR, since (a) I like the feel of the camera in my hands better than the Canon, and ( my Dad shoots Nikon   . I tend to disbelieve any statements like "all landscape/sports/fashion photographers worth their salt shoot only with Nikon/Canon/whatever". You shoot with what you have, and what feels good in your hand. There is nothing like the heft of tool that is perfectly suited to your style... whatever the brand. It's like writing a letter with the perfect pen -- once you find the one that fits, ahhh, there's nothing like it!

Sarg -- with your background, I can't wait to see what you'lll do in landscape work! Go for it![/font]

[sarge]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi,
I've been toting Nikon gear around since the "F" and I use it in my everyday work, which is surveillance and crime scene photos (Not the most artistic of subjects).  However, I've noticed recently that all the photogs on the sidelines at football games and most everyone I come across on the net uses Canon gear.  I seem to have missed something along the way!!

After a diet of dead bodies and dope deals for the last twenty years, I'd like to try landscape photography, but I need some guidance on gear.  Why does everyone use Canon?  I'm sure there are plenty of folks who will head me in the right direction.  

Thanks,
John[/font]

[Dixon Zalit]

[font color=\'#000000\']The Canon guys think their stuff is better. The Nikon guys think their stuff is better. Or some do.

Canon seems to have grabbed the sports photographers because of their hot autofocus systems. Some like the canon lenses better. The image stabilization lenses are good.

However, for landscape photography you don't need all that speed, so just pick what works best for you. If you have a lot of nikon lenses, then the new Nikon D100 will take them and do a fine job. The soon to be released Kodak camera should be AWESOME.  Fuji has a couple of digital SLRs too for your Nikon lenses. There are older (a year or so!) Nikon digitals like the D1 and D1x, but landscape photographers seem to think Canon's color is better.

I switched to Canon when the D30 came out because it was affordable and had great reviews. If I were switching to digital now, I would just stay with Nikon as good cameras are coming out for my Nikon lenses. I do like the idea that many old nikon lenses will fit on the newest cameras, unlike Canon who changed the mount when autofocus was invented. Canon forces you to buy new lenses. Nikon lets you use anything with an F mount. (Yes I know the metering functions will not work with old lenses but so what?)

The web is a great place for research on this kind of thing.[/font]

[Pete]

[font color=\'#000000\']Sorry Sarge, I meant to address you, not Dixon.  Hello to you too, though, Dixon.[/font]

[Hank]

[font color=\'#000000\']Sarge,

The issue is the same one faced by chefs-  Which pots and pans will make me a better cook?  The Canon versus Nikon question is the same quagmire that plagues auto buffs:  Chevy/Dodge/Ford/Toyota.

We shoot both systems in our business, and though there are some tradeoffs, in the long run neither will make you a more successful photographer than the guy standing next to you using another system.  Canon and Nikon have traded off "first place" lots of times over the years with neither putting the other out of business.  

Sounds like you are well acquainted with the Nikon system, and probably have a substantial investment in it.  Do the best you can cooking landscape quisine with those pots, and only switch to Canon pans if the Department of Health and Camera Style threatens to shut down your kitchen.

Hank[/font]

[sergio]

[font color=\'#000000\']I am a Nikon user ( I almost never shoot 35mm these days anyway) because it was the first I had ( old Nikkormat). However, there are several lenses in the Nikon line up I wouldn't want to buy again, for example the 50mm 1.8
I bought this lens because its one of the smallest they make. This makes very portable to carry an FM2 around for everyday shooting. Anyway its also a very cheap lens. You get what you pay for. I f you want to use autofocus, don't even think about it twice. Canon is king. If didn't have a big set of Nikon glass I would probably have bought Canon nowadays, but the expense of selling everything and rebuying in another brand is too much for what Canon offers.Lets see the new Kodak does with Nikon glass.[/font]