Ahhh they got nuthin on Sony people. Once upon a time, Sony sold more digital cameras than the rest put together.
With Sony acquiring Minolta, the hope and dream on many Sony boards is that Sony will resume their former market dominance. (The theory being that Sony has tons of money from all the markets they are in, so they can out money Canon and Nikon.)
Time will tell, but I'm shopping an new DSLR today and though I have owned Sony digi cams since the FD-71 in 1998, I will not be shopping Sony today.
I just don't see the A700 as the equal of the 40D or the D300. I'll probably wind up with the 40D, as the D300 is stretching my price point by a few hundered dollars.
Its really not the camera; but yeah- it seems that if you look statsically, teh amount of submissions and quality of entries, if it means anything, vastly leans toward the 30d; and now 40d; seems that good photographers just prefer them?
Originally posted by ambaker:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Nikon users are really poor losers.
Ahhh they got nuthin on Sony people. Once upon a time, Sony sold more digital cameras than the rest put together.
With Sony acquiring Minolta, the hope and dream on many Sony boards is that Sony will resume their former market dominance. (The theory being that Sony has tons of money from all the markets they are in, so they can out money Canon and Nikon.)
Time will tell, but I'm shopping an new DSLR today and though I have owned Sony digi cams since the FD-71 in 1998, I will not be shopping Sony today.
I just don't see the A700 as the equal of the 40D or the D300. I'll probably wind up with the 40D, as the D300 is stretching my price point by a few hundered dollars.
You can see the average vote received by cameras through This Link
Not sure if you knew about it, but when you go under Equipment, Cameras, at the bottom, there are 3 links.
Best,
-AC.
Huh, I did not know that. Very interesting.
I think it is obvious we all need to go buy a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III, and soon.
Don't forget to pick up the optional "Larus skillset" package not to mention his MUA (i.e. his wife) and the legion of models, landscapes he shoots. He's pretty much the reason that camera has the highest average not to mention others who use it aren't too shabby either.
I am a Nikon guy - I inherited a bunch of great MF glass from my dad - so I am partial to them. But it doesn't take a big fancy shmancy camera to score well. Like others have said, some really good images have been taken around here will little pocket P&S cameras.
My Panasonic Lumix FS5 and my old 2mpixel Canon S200 have done a decent job of scoring around here (including scoring my only blue ribbon). I know that there are many others that have delivered the goods with similar or 'lower' quality equipment.
I would dare to say that talent has significantly more impact on the results than the actual camera (or camera brand) used. If you're a good photographer, you can take amazing pictures and earn ribbons with the cheapest camera. And if you have no clue, even using a 1D or a D3 won't help.
The two brands may have strengths in different areas, but their impact is minimal. I'd say that if the same photographer takes the same picture once with a Canon and once with a Nikon camera (of the same generation), you wouldn't be able to tell which is which. This is more of a religious discussion we are having here.
And please forget about the statistics. There's no way to control for all the other factors influencing the scores.
Agreed. But it is fun to jest about which one is better.
I am a Nikon guy - I inherited a bunch of great MF glass from my dad - so I am partial to them. But it doesn't take a big fancy shmancy camera to score well. Like others have said, some really good images have been taken around here will little pocket P&S cameras.
My Panasonic Lumix FS5 and my old 2mpixel Canon S200 have done a decent job of scoring around here (including scoring my only blue ribbon). I know that there are many others that have delivered the goods with similar or 'lower' quality equipment.
To help prove your point, my first ribbon (indecently a blue ribbon) was shot with an old 2mpixel cam:
I would dare to say that talent has significantly more impact on the results than the actual camera (or camera brand) used. If you're a good photographer, you can take amazing pictures and earn ribbons with the cheapest camera. And if you have no clue, even using a 1D or a D3 won't help.
The two brands may have strengths in different areas, but their impact is minimal. I'd say that if the same photographer takes the same picture once with a Canon and once with a Nikon camera (of the same generation), you wouldn't be able to tell which is which. This is more of a religious discussion we are having here.
And please forget about the statistics. There's no way to control for all the other factors influencing the scores.
Oh that's it! Bring logic and reason into it. That's cheating!!!!
That goes right back to ability, creativity, and work. Isn't MasterCard good for anything anymore?
