Canon or Nikon?

This was a Poll from another Forum. It was a Poll given by someone who in my opinion has been profoundly and inexorably brainwashed and as a result I felt compelled to leave the following message:

My Heading: Neither...All Of and Anything that Can...

This is a false premise...Most of the present day DSLR's can be used professionally. Whether it is Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sigma, Leica or Samsung. Ten million pixels is more than enough o be published in all types of magazines as well as most poster formats. I have been published using the Canon 350D, just to prove to myself that it doesn't really matter. I once used a Canon G5 circa 2002-3 5megapixel camera with hot-shoe and RAW capability and was also published with it.

I am fed up with pixel peeping incompetents that spend most of their time scrutinizing the screen on the computer rather than enjoying the act of expression. If what you find joy in is the technical aspects of the anatomy of a camera, perhaps that may be the subject of your post. I can guarantee that if I gave you a 'Blad with a 39 mega pixel back it wouldn't improve on your capacity to express what you are expressing presently and until you understand the need to have "X-Zillion" Pixels, I suggest you spend more time perfecting your art. By doing so you may then ask yourself. Is the tool I am using limiting my capacity to express that which I need to express by being technically substandard? Is it therefore impeding my capacity to express myself? Give me a Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, Leica, Olympus, Sigma or what ever and I will take images that will work because I know the support it will be utilized in.

It is the photographer and not the camera that captures the image. It is through those eyes that we can see a part of the "ID" and what is important to the artist. It is the capturing of that moment that makes the individual unique. The decision as to when one captures the moment is crucial to his/her expression and not with which camera it was taken with.

Ben

Thanks Ben, but you may be preaching to the choir here. I don't think you'll find many here that disagree with your premise that it's the eye behind the glass.

It may even not be the glass, even, after all one does not even need a lens, just a pinhole.

The picture Benjamin made of the couple in the hotel room with the light coming from the left side, done with a Canon XTI could, I imagine, also have been made with a pinhole camera and porta film pushed.

This is why at OPF we look to the result!

Details are important for someone to learn technic, for sure.

Frankly, most of what we do can be done as well with a 3MP D30 Canon DSLR and a $90 EF lens!

Sure we do better with more expensive equipment, but we are already 85%-95% there with the simplest camera especially when f5.6 to 8 is allowable.

In this range, the source of the lens and difraction limits are not generally important.

I celebrate every time I see something good from Pentax, Nikon, Olympus or anyone else, since we are keeping players on the field. However, in few cases does it matter which I have.

Either I'm good enough for what I want to do or I'm not, that is the only limitation most of the time.

asher

My Brother

My Brother a Studio Musician, Touring Artist and Architect had this to say regarding my original post:

Very true and a universal truth that can apply to pretty much any endeavor. A great, good or competent artist, entrepreneur, grand prix racer, truck driver,carpenter,athlete,or, you fill in the space, relies on their talent, abilities ,judgement and sixth sense. They can "perform" on any equipment. The difference between the quality of their "performance" on mediocre versus excellent equipment is minimal. The difference between the quality of the "performance" of a mediocre talent on mediocre versus excellent equipment is also minimal. Only a mediocre talent blames their equipment. A great, good or competent talent capitalizes on what they have.......

it matters a little, in my opinion.
We are photographers after all and the "tool" do need to be understood , fully, by us. In other words we need to find the best tool for the job. And the fact that we're now in the digital era makes that even more important.
The difference between a D80 and a 5D is pretty visible. For example. Now we can't get out of this like we didn't know, or we don't know or we don't care. We need to care, and we need to know.

Now this does not mean that we have to rush to the latest gadget just because: again we are called to perform a serious evaluation depending on what we want to produce.

Take me for example: still shooting the original 1Ds because it's as close as I can get to my idea of a good balance between contrast, colors, details and overall impact of the prints. I didn't rush to the 1DsII or 5D, that's what I mean. But I did evaluate the tool, and Ive been back and forth between Canon and Kodak for a year before making the decision to stay with the 1Ds.

And I need to thank many fellow posters on the forums who really gave me a big help during the process.

It's not always pixel-peeping .. sometimes it's necessary to learn from the other's experiences.

Methinks our standards are our own - not yours or anyone else's on this or any other forum.
Of course it is wrong to own and drive an Aston Martin unless your driving standards are equal to or better than 008!
Benjamin may be fed up with pixel peepers and that is fair enough but I am quite happy with my Austin 7 manners (and ability) and my love of DB 7s.

Absolutely...

samdring said:

Methinks our standards are our own - not yours or anyone else's on this or any other forum.
Of course it is wrong to own and drive an Aston Martin unless your driving standards are equal to or better than 008!
Benjamin may be fed up with pixel peepers and that is fair enough but I am quite happy with my Austin 7 manners (and ability) and my love of DB 7s.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. You mustn't think that I was referring to "You" personally. Were you? "Pixel Peeping Incompetents" was a "Rhetorical" statement.

Ben