To stay or not to stay (with Canon)... that is the question.

Go Olympus. IS is built into the body, making lenses cheaper and lighter....plus they have been around a while so there is plenty of 2nd hand glass that doesnt draw the premiums of the canon/nikon glass.

Anthon wrote in post #14417146
Yes, I'm actually choosing between 2 families. It's true that Canon is easier to find in second hands.
I also like Canon L lenses more.

Yeah, Nikon fanboys can be douche bags sometimes. How many times has it happened that people would come to me and say like - "Oh Canon, not good... you should throw away this crap and get yourself a Nikon".

You've answered the question.

T2i4me wrote in post #14417070
All I know is at just about every event I am at the ratio of Canon to Nikon is 2 or 3 to 1 so I figure the opportunity to find used Canon lenses and or bodies is much easier (I always buy used).

My experience as well. And these are men and women whose equipment is paid for by their companies, and they can buy whatever gear they want.

Several of the pros around my studio are dying to get their hands on my 5D2 when I get the 5D3. I actually have a bit of a bidding war going on. I've been there a long time and I've only had one guy buy a Nikon DSLR.

And remember service. Canon has much better service IMO than Nikon, and I've had to send gear in more than several times. It comes back in 2-3 days.

I think it would be really difficult to make an argument that the D7000 IQ is inherently better than the 7D. Maybe straight out of the camera jpegs but that's more about the internal processing settings (style settings) on the camera itself. If you are shooting RAW you should be able to get great IQ out of both. Personally I prefer the skin tones I get from Canon. Every camera has it's quirks. Noise and sharpness are two that people seem to struggle with but once you learn how to deal with these things, they cease to be issues.

The 7D is an amazing piece of machinery. I don't think the D7000 will even come close in build, feel, ergonomics, AF system or customization features. That's why that new D7000 is the same price as the older 7D. You seem like you prefer it because of the build and the Canon lenses. I would just go with the Canon 7D and then figure out how to make good images with it.

Anthon wrote in post #14417050
Oh well, maybe it's just me, and the-grass-always-looks-greener-on-the-other-side-thing... I have that a lot.

I think perhaps it is just you. I've never seen anyone who is a truly knowledgeable, respected authority, write that Nikons (across the board) take better images than Canons.
One may say that a Nikon D800 is capable of resolving more fine detail than a Canon 5D Mark 2 (or, conversely, one might say that a Canon 40D produces a cleaner file at ISO 400 than a Nikon D200).

But never have I heard anyone say that Nikons produce better images overall . . . until I read your post.

if you have to ask then you have already made up your mind and are looking for justification for your choice. I don't think it really matters if you go Canon or Nikon. They are about the same when you boil it all down. If you have nothing Canon to hold you to the brand and want a Nikon then go for it.

When I was faced with the Nikon/Canon question years (decades) ago...I went with Canon
based on the simple fact that they had "affordable" 400mm lenses and Nikon didn't. If I had
to make that decision again today I would start by looking at what lenses I want and the availability/cost first.

You're basing this decision on the fact that some hipsters like some brand more than the other? Come on dude, at least leave that aspect out of it haha

Lemme get that for you...

Anthon wrote in post #14417146
How many times has it happened that people would come to me and say like - "Oh Canon, not good... you should throw away this crap and get yourself a Nikon".

And you listen to such crap?

I have good friend that just went d800 - I think after seeing the Nikon Fan boy review of the 5D3 and the increased resolution didn't buy all that much additional cropping advantage and in video the 5d3 just toasted the Nikon in low light video. (there is video on vimeo that is points out that the extra resolution only helps at extreme crop and then not so much.)

On the video side, Canon 550d,600d, 60d, 5d2, (just heard the 5d3) can run Magic Lantern. I am unaware of any Nikon equivalence.

Lens quality is a hot debate - for a reasons that are immaterial to 99.9% of shooters. And for the .1% if it is that important, get a Leica lens and stick on the body.

One of the interesting twists is the ... Sony - it is the sensor in the Nikon and with adaptors you can pick Canon, Nikon, or Leica lenses.

The budget reality comes to mind. 550,600, 60d, all have the same sensor as the 7d. The idea of a transitional body, i.e. 2-3 years until the next bigger breakthrough comes to market.

I would pick the solution that fits your expectations in 2-3 years.

Good luck

T2i4me wrote in post #14417070
...I went with Canon as I had several friends with Canon's and I wanted to be able to swap lenses with them...

This is an excellent point and often under appreciated.

If you work collaboratively with other photographers on a project basis, using the same brand is beneficial. You can not only swap lenses but also operational tips, flash guns, use the same tethering software, same raw processing software, etc.

E.g, you can't use Nikon's Capture NX2 on a Canon raw file, nor use Canon's DPP on a Nikon raw file. You can't use Canon's EOS Utility to tether a Nikon camera, etc.

Since the main determinant of photo quality is not the camera, but the photographer, lens and post processing, it doesn't really matter whether you pick Nikon or Canon. If others in your current or possible future photographic work group use one brand, it's beneficial to use the same brand -- not because it's better but because of commonality.

Don't forget to stick it to Canon when you go to Nikon -

http://aphotocontribut​or.typepad.com …r/2012/04/sea-change.html

fotoworx wrote in post #14417795
And you listen to such crap?

No, not really... especially if they don't have anything to show. Usually these types of photographers don't have a camera with them

It still makes me want to punch them in the face though

I don't claim to have an authority to decide which family takes better pictures, it was just mine personal general impression. Again, these types of things are very subjective, so don't take it too seriously.

Anthon wrote in post #14417870
I don't claim to have an authority to decide which family takes better pictures

This doesn't make sense now. You claim to have done photography for a number of years as a student and passed and graduated from a film school.

Surely you would know the answer is the photographer?

mjmackinnon wrote in post #14417532
if you have to ask then you have already made up your mind and are looking for justification for your choice. I don't think it really matters if you go Canon or Nikon. They are about the same when you boil it all down. If you have nothing Canon to hold you to the brand and want a Nikon then go for it.

Sorry about your equipment that is gone. Did the insurance cover the money spent on it, or the replacement value? As stated above by MJ, you do not need justification for what you do. It is not the equipment, contrary to what some people think, but the person behind it. Buy what you want.