Why Canon for landscape

This is simply because of curiousity.

Why did YOU opt for Canon? And by 'you' I mean you who primarily photograph landscapes and other things which mostly means using a tripod and printing big. This is not a thread suggesting some other brand is better (so please keep the 'Canon kicks ass' and 'D800e is better' comments to yourself).

Because Canon was the first p&s I used. I got used to the settings, menus and ergonomics. I've worked with Nikons and Fuji S5's at work, but still can't stand their menus and settings. Canon is what I am used to.

I can throw out some thoughts...

1. I suspect many people, including myself, are invested in a system (aka I got a crap ton of lenses for it) and changing systems just to keep up with which brand is slightly better is not really worth the effort and loss of money everytime you have to sell off and rebuy.

2. Canon's first FF came out in 2002. The 5Dc came out in 2005 and it's attractive cost prolly attracted a lot of landscape photogs. Nikon's first one came out in 2007. The D700 being the first affordable one didn't come out until 2008.

3. Canon has historically had a resolution advantage over Nikon. Well... Nikon has the 3Dx but it is rather expensive compared to the 5D2 which has almost as much resolution. Landscape folks love resolution.

Lets see what other people think now...

For me it was by chance. I had been looking at the Nikon D300 for some time, moving from FourThirds. I wanted a good allround camera body. Canon released the 7D and I jumped for it. It was later I fell in love with photographing from a tripod.

I used to shoot with film, but when I moved to digital I had a Konika Minolta DiMage. When I jumped into DSLR's I read review after review. I went and looked at and handled different offerings from Nikon and Canon. My son had brought a Nikon so I was leaning that way, but in the end the Canon won the day. It just seemed to fit me better and as Will says, I was investing in a system and I preferred the Canon lens line up over the Nikon. Since then I have gone through different bodies and many lenses and now use a 5D2. My son has a new Nikon D7000 now and while I think it is a good camera and I use it every so often, I feel at home with Canon so would not change anytime soon, if at all. I am a bit disappointed the 5D3 has come in so expensive in comparison with the D800, but I don't even want a 5D3 so it is a moot point.

Why NOT?

oh and I forgot to mention one important thing: Canon - because you can

one reason if i was a landscape photographer would be because of Canon's TS-E offerings. From what i've seen they are top notch.

themadman wrote in post #14114085
I can throw out some thoughts...

Well... Nikon has the 3Dx but it is rather expensive compared to the 5D2 which has almost as much resolution. Landscape folks love resolution.

Of course, now Nikon has the D800...

easy.

when you want to shoot something, anything, the most effective weapon is always a CANON.

In swedish we've got 'Kan nån' kan Canon'. It's pronounced 'cun non cun Canon' and translates to 'If someone can, Canon can.'

Dinzdale40 wrote in post #14114540
one reason if i was a landscape photographer would be because of Canon's TS-E offerings. From what i've seen they are top notch.

I can confirm that! The TS-E 24mm is a stellar lens for landscapes and is a great reason for going with Canon for landscape photography. Like many, I've had a natural progression that initially started with my first Powershot 3mp camera to the 10mp xti to the 21mp 5D II.

I had used and loved the G7 for a few years and had purchased the 270 EX Speedlite. When I was trying to decide Canon VS Nikon, I thought I can at least use the Speedlite....

If I didn't have all this dang Canon stuff, I would probably get the D800(e) but I'll wait a while to see how Canon responds with a high MP FF to match - and then see how the deep shadow banding is

Actually, when the 5D2 came out and I tested the new TSE's I sold my 4x5!

Color rendition in landscape photography.