Who here has Nikon's and which ones and why??

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #9330264
OT Posts removed - while it may be funny to some, it's not helpful. Please stay on topic.

sorry about that....

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #9330264
OT Posts removed - while it may be funny to some, it's not helpful. Please stay on topic.

Thank you! I know this is a Canon forum, I'm not daft but when people put in their siggy their Nikon gear, to me it opens up the question of why both? I'm not trying to be a PIA but to understand the differences.

egordon99 wrote in post #9330176
Did you think only Canon can shoot fashion?

I was being serious (yet somewhat lighthearted...) You seemed suprised that someone was using a D300 to shoot fashion.

I think I have been fairly helpful in this thread.

Oh, forgot...My dad shoots Nikon. He has a D80. he never uses it because it's too big to lug around

egordon99 wrote in post #9330297
I was being serious (yet somewhat lighthearted...) You seemed suprised that someone was using a D300 to shoot fashion.

I think I have been fairly helpful in this thread.

Oh, forgot...My dad shoots Nikon. He has a D80. he never uses it because it's too big to lug around

it's a crop not top of the line camera, I expected the person to be using a higher end FF camera, hence my surprise

its not the camera that makes pictures but the photographer ... that said canon FTW!!

Mastamarek wrote in post #9330324
its not the camera that makes pictures but the photographer ... that said canon FTW!!

Which was exactly my point with the Bi-Lingual Pen post...

It's not the hardware that makes the style.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #9330316
it's a crop not top of the line camera, I expected the person to be using a higher end FF camera, hence my surprise

OK, that makes sense. Full-frame is not the holy grail of photography. It IS better than crop if you're comparing noise at high ISO, but given the right lighting/lenses/compos​ition, crop bodies are MORE than capable. Additionally, shooting with strobes you're usually at a low ISO anyway.

I've been shooting crop since 2005 (I did dabble in B&W darkroom stuff back in high school), and my images have been fine. I'd love to get a 5DII if the circumstances allowed, but I'm producing pictures that my clients (for my paying jobs) and my family (for my family pictures ) absolutely love. And I'm fairly certain I'd be able to produce similar output using Nikon or Pentax as well.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9330334
It's not the hardware that makes the style.

Your right but it's the hardware that makes a pic from good to on the wall good!

I'm sick of almost perfect, I want perfect, KWIM?

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #9330349
I'm sick of almost perfect, I want perfect, KWIM?

Nikon D3(X) - $7500
Nikon 70-200 VR - $2400
Nikon 24-70 - $1800
Nikon 14-24 - $1800
Nikon 200-400 - $6000
Total - $19,500

And that's for zooms

For L primes, grab a 1Ds MKIII to put the 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L

Now to add some super teles
I think I have some money leftover for some Alien Bees


Or should I just get a Hasselblad digital medium format?

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #9330349
Your right but it's the hardware that makes a pic from good to on the wall good!

I'd rather have a properly lit, exposed, and composed image from a Rebel + kit lens than a poorly lit/exposed/composed shot from a 5DII.

You seem to be stuck on the hardware aspect of photography.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #9330349
Your right but it's the hardware that makes a pic from good to on the wall good!

Arguably the most specious statement in photography.

Be sure to pack a lunch .. it's a long trip.

I think tonight I'm going to dig up my old box of B&W prints I made back in high school. Shot with an Olympus OM and a manual focus 50mm lens.

Why I chose Canon. 2 reasons!! $$ and primes. Nikon has better cameras then canon. No question about it. That said canon is not bad at all, it is just not as good as nikon. Canon primes are really good. Canon sooner or later will get the body business right (aka 7D). When that happens I'd rather on the winning side with great primes. Its not the camera that takes pictures. Yes, high ISO helps but its not worth $20.000 as some here before quoted. Cameras are bunch of chips and some plastic. Its the glass that really counts and ohh boy canon shines in this department.

egordon99 wrote in post #9330411
I'd rather have a properly lit, exposed, and composed image from a Rebel + kit lens than a poorly lit/exposed/composed shot from a 5DII.

You seem to be stuck on the hardware aspect of photography.

I'm not stuck on hardware, I know hardware make a difference. I have good shots from my old P&S why don't I just use that, it's a silly debate.

I want a better camera and I hate the grip on the one I have, why not upgrade it?

If you really love the 85/1.2, I'd look into the 7D. One of my friends just bought one and she is loving it. If I could get a new body, it would probably be the 7D (or the 5DII if the price comes a bit closer to $2K)