Non-Nikon/Canon users - what made you buy?
Non-Nikon/Canon users - what made you buy?
Author
Discussion

Kermit power

Original Poster:

29,622 posts

243 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
The majority of the "what DSLR" type threads always seem to start with the assumption that people will only even want to contemplate either Nikon or Canon.

For people who decided to go with a different brand to those two, what was it about whatever you bought which swayed your decision and sent you off in a different direction to the herd?

LMC

918 posts

243 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
This doesn't answer your question in any way, as I am very recently the proud owner of a Canon 40D, but I seriously seriously considered the Sony @700, mainly due to the body's IS.

But in the end I went with the herd.....baaa (or is that mooooo ?)

Gemm

1,833 posts

245 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
My first proper SLR was Minolta. It was what I thought was the best deal then. It did a great job and I stuck with them for some years. However, when I got to learn more about cameras, I knew I should've gone to Canon or Nikon. The last straw was when I eventually decided to switch to digital. Minolta just didn't produce a DSLR then.

curtisl

1,406 posts

236 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
My first proper camera was a Canon EOS 3000v so when i made the switch to digital it was the easy choice to stick with Canon.

I have never touched another camera so ignorance is bliss for me.

GetCarter

31,288 posts

309 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
I've owned Brownie, Kodak, Zenit, Pentax, Leica, Minolta, Canon, Bronica, Hasselblad, Rioch & Nikon...

... who you calling a herd? wink

(Nikon brought out the D1, which is why I ended up with them).


Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 24th February 15:36

onomatopoeia

3,526 posts

247 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
My first SLR was a second hand Minolta 7000i, bought on advice in a camera shop in 1999 without knowing the relative popularity of the different brands. When I went digital last year I bought a Sony A300 so I didn't have to get involved with buying a complete set of new lenses as well.

As it is digital has re-awoken my enthusiasm and I've since replaced some of my lenses with faster / sharper equivalents plus added a couple and am seriously considering an A700 (an A900 would be too much camera for me I think as well as too much money. )

Body stabilisation is cloud9 incidentally.

Simpo Two

92,890 posts

295 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
If I was just stumbling in DSLR-land for the first time as an amateur, I might choose an Olympus just because I like the look of them - more like a film SLR - and because of the 'rarity' value!

stigmundfreud

22,454 posts

240 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
for those that invest in the 2/3rds system or whatever it is called

WHY ON GODS EARTH?

Kermit power

Original Poster:

29,622 posts

243 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
stigmundfreud said:
for those that invest in the 2/3rds system or whatever it is called

WHY ON GODS EARTH?
Aren't they supposed to have quite a few benefits, like much smaller, lighter lenses for the same reach, and IS built into the bodies rather than just some of the lenses?

GetCarter

31,288 posts

309 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
stigmundfreud said:
for those that invest in the 2/3rds system or whatever it is called

WHY ON GODS EARTH?
At last an easy one.

The D1 was the dogs. That's why I bought it. If it had have been 1/3 frame, I would have bought it. I bought the 996 tt because it was the best at the time. I could have waited a few years and bought the 997 tt of course. It is better. I could also just wait for the 998 tt.

For those of us that want the best, we buy the best. Nikon produced the best, so we bought it... and bought lenses to suit. To change to Canon 4 years later (when they caught up and procuced better FF DSLRs) would mean selling all our kit. So we are stuck with Nikon.

Now pro Canon users are bailing out to buy Nikon...

... go figure.

Why did they choose Canon I wonder?

To invest in a 2/3 sensor now is a simple matter that the rest of us suckers are shedding off, so the market is cheap, and the results are still stunning, as Nikkor Lenses have always been at the top of the tree.

(edit to add... speaking as one who generally recommends Cannon)


Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 24th February 19:57

SamHH

5,078 posts

246 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
GetCarter: I think he meant Four Thirds, the Olympus one.

stigmundfreud

22,454 posts

240 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
yeah sorry Steve I meant the 4/3rds one ooopsy biggrin

Nice post though if wasted on me wink

The Tea Boy

4,129 posts

265 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
well i personally brought the camera that felt right to hold and felt easyish to use (Sony A200) absolutley love it, never used another camera so cant comment about the other makes.

Matt

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

284 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
I liked nikon higher end bodies and lens's but at the time they had nothing in the 350D marketplace to compare at all and no full frame upgrade path (and didnt for 2.5+ years more).

Also a friend had a canon with a few lens's I could borrow. Picked the 350D over the 20D because it was smaller and lighter.

4hero

4,505 posts

241 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
Wasn't keen on the user interface on the Nikon at the time, so opted for Canon. 2 bodies later, and lots of lenses, I have no intentions of moving to the other side wink

Edited to add, plus Nikon don't do an equivalent to my MP-E65!

Edited by 4hero on Tuesday 24th February 22:03

Ebo100

506 posts

234 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
The Tea Boy said:
well i personally brought the camera that felt right to hold and felt easyish to use (Sony A200) absolutley love it, never used another camera so cant comment about the other makes.

Matt
+1 for the sony A200. I went out to buy the Nikon D40 but returned with the Sony. I really like it, the menu system is easy to use and the camera feels ok and more importantly I like the photo's I'm taking.

hman

7,497 posts

224 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
mamiya, hassleblad?

arej

425 posts

232 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
I was seriously tempted by a Sony a350 over my 450D because of the value for money and some extra features but went for Canon in the end because of the lens choices and current market establishment. I am very glad I did what I did and wouldn't want to change it. It will be interesting to see how Sony do in the DSLR market in time as they are very promising.

Ordinary Bloke

4,559 posts

228 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
4/3rds would be nice if it broke the Canon Nikon duopoly, imagine all those interchangeable bodies and lenses. But Canon and Nikon aren't going to let that happen, while they lead the market.

Meanwhile, GetCarter recommends Cannon cookers...

Fetchez la vache

5,906 posts

244 months

Tuesday 24th February 2009
quotequote all
I bought an Olympus E-1 second hand simply as I really liked the results produced from it. I follow quite a few photographers blogs, and a couple who go for the same sort of photography I like had E-1's. When one came up 2nd hand from one of these bloggers, I thought I'd go for it.

Simple really, and I don't regret it, though I'm sure there will always be the nagging feeling that I should have bought something else...

... much like my Saab 9-5 comfy boat biggrin