[QUOTE=Willie Gee,Mar 3 2009, 11:55 AM] You can get great results with a $25 camera.

 

I still have a box with three Minolta SRT bodies and all the lenses. I had my first Minolta in 1973 and used them right up though the 90s till digital took over.

I was going to get rid of them until I took a weekend class with some National Geo photographers. When they climbed everest, none of the digital stuff would work due to the extreme cold so they took the summit shots with and old Nikon F doing all exposures manually.

I am going to dig my old minoltas out and burn a few rolls just for old times.

 

Some of the best photos I have ever taken I took with this XA.

Studied in the Amazon Rainforest, lived with Caboclos for 8 weeks. Lived off the land. Did not want to risk ruining an SLR. Purchased this "cheap" manual camera. My photos came out awesome.

 

You just disagreed with what he didn't say, and agreed with what he said.

Gee said that you can get great results with a $25 camera, and that's true. He never said an expensive camera can't get better results (to a point) with the same shooter. However, if you look at some SLR bodies, that have no "easy" modes and almost everything is a manual setting, in which case a shooter that doesn't know how to setup the camera will probably get better results with the $25 camera.

IMO the differences between Canon and Nikon are greatly outweighed by the person looking through the camera. You can get great shots with either in any environment. Canon IMO has a better low and mid range lens selection though. Once you get up to the higher levels of lenses both are fantastic.

Nikon's 18-200 was a brilliant idea, but now Canon has copied that.. before that Nikon had the far superior walk around lens, and I still like that Nikkor 18-200 over the Canon 18-200...

Most of my action shooting is with the 70-200 L lens. Most of my random pics of ebay, mini bike rebuild, quick car pics/for sale pics, etc I use a point and shoot for I rarely use the SLR for anything but motorsports and hockey shooting these days.. too lazy to deal with all the bulk

Of the track photographers I know, it's a fairly equal split Nikon to Canon, but the one thing that's the same, everyone has at least one 70-200 lens, usually an f2.8.. lenses > body brand IMO. Although I do really like Nikon's AF system over Canon's 9 point system. Both are usuable though.

 

..... nahh ha.. Will (renderman) . . . I like Hondas. You and your fancy, pansy Toyota and Nikon. I hope your sensor gets dusty!

 

[QUOTE=jimreaper,Mar 3 2009, 12:30 PM].....

 

Olympus always had sharp lenses. I I still have the automatic version of that camera too. One of the best cameras I have ever owned.

 

<~~~ Nikon D80 and loving it! Been a Nikon fanboy since my first camera... But i'd ditto Chris on the D90... great camera, and it shoots clean video as well.

But i agree that if i was going to be shooting a lot of sports and high action photography, i'd prefer a Canon. However, shooting my neices and nephews sporting events, and a few races here and there goes just fine with the Nikon... its not like it can't shoot anything thats moving.

 

I've been through D80, D200, and now D300. Hopefully soon will move up the a Full frame camera like D700. I love Nikon. They are just too good.

 

I like the way you think, I'm making a giant leap for photography kind in the future, it is called D700