The debate continues. I’m a photographer who fell out of her passion in JHS when she fell with the "wrong crowd". Prior to doing so my photography teacher was helping me look into great high schools that offer amazing photography programs. It never happened because I took a wrong turn on a lonely road. I am now getting back to my roots and much like then people are telling me how talented I am and what an eye I have. I have a great film camera. It has never steered me wrong and after 15+ years of using it I have decided to upgrade to digital. My question is clear… Which camera is best to be used for someone who takes pictures mostly film/tv sets and landscapes? Most on set photographers I know use Nikon’s but when I ask them "why that camera?" I usually get no more than the standard "I just prefer it" answer. So fellow yahooers what’s the deal? Nikon or Canon AND WHY? The "why?" is very important. Please don’t just tell me yr camera of choice and move on.
Keep in mind affordability. My pocket size isn’t very deep so I’m going to say between $600-$800.
Thanks!
Honestly… I know this isn’t what you want to hear, but they are *both* fantastic systems and you really can’t go wrong with either Canon or Nikon… whether you’re shooting landscapes or film sets or portraits or flower macros or anything else.
I would suggest that you try out the top-of-the-line dSLRs of both Nikon and Canon in a camera store and see which one feels better in your hands, and which controls are more intuitive to you. The image quality is so similar, it all boils down to which one "feels" more natural for you. That makes more of a difference than you would imagine… but realize that this is a long-term commitment to a system, and you will (over time) be investing in expensive lenses and accessories, so you want a camera body that feels intuitive to you.