Canon, Nikon or Sony ?

[Martin]

I refuse to rise to the bait...I'm just going to sit back and watch the fireworks, with a smug look on my face

Martin.

[Pete Eeles]

On a serious note ... really! ... I once dropped my Canon 10D wth Sigma lens and the filter smashed into a 1000 pieces. The lens and camera were fine.

The lesson - always use a filter, since they're a lot cheaper to replace than a lens!

Anyway - the answer is Canon, of course

Cheers,

- Pete

[Piers]

So, nominations for the most bullet-proof camera please....

I think that the Nikon FM2n has gone down in history as pretty much bullet proof (almost literally) - hence it's popularity with explorers and pioneers even to this day, although it hasn't been made for a few years now. It really will take just about any punishment thrown at it.

New cameras seem to be incredibly fragile and not at all suited to elemental extremes. But then there's more delicate technology involved in a camera these days, and that's a good thing.
Isn't it?

Felix.

[Martin]

Canon 1DSmkIII

Operating Environment
Operating Temperature Range
32-113°F/0-45°C

Operating Humidity Range
85% or less

[eccles]

Gruditch wrote:
You've already said too much, wait till Eccles reads your "Personaly I think that Sony are not in the same league as the other two...nowhere near...and wouldn't even consider one." comment


Gruditch

That was aimed at thier "range" of lenses, not thier quality

Martin.

I've belatedly stumbled on this thread and found the above comment, and you may be surprised to hear that I think Martin is right. If you wish to buy new lenses then Canikon have the better ranges. But the important thing, surely, is that you can get the lenses that you want for the body you choose. The Nikon D300 is a superb camera but look at the price! Sure, you can get a 500mm F4 IS Canon but at well over £3000, for me, it ain't going to happen, so why should I bother worrying that my brand doesn't have one (yet)? I was happy to hunt down second hand kit for my Sony A100 and much of the old Minolta glass that I bought I believe cannot be beaten for quality vs price. I have six lenses and a 1.4 teleconverter. Only the teleconverter was purchased new. The most expensive lens at £260 was a Sigma 400 f5.6 telemacro. AF is a bit slow but it is optically superb, reputedly comparable to the Canon equivalent 'L' glass. The sum total cost of all the other lenses including the teleconverter was less than this. I won't go on about the relative merits or demerits of any particular camera body as all of them will take good pictures, but sufficient to say that I would not consider a non-image stabilised body.
The biggest problem that I see with all the main camera manufacturers is that you either have to buy consumer grade glass that is cheap and not very good optically, or pay through the nose for high end optics. The availability of good value glass for medium/high end amateur use is limited unless you go to the independents such as Sigma.
(or buy second hand Minolta of course )

[freeway]

I wouldnt buy a sony. Personally i simply love the canons. Used them all my life from back in the days when digital wasnt even heard of. I am currently using a 400D but will be buying a 450D once the price drops a little. I am a big fan of sigma and have a wide range of lenses, but the 150 is superb. I will be purchasing the canon macro 65m one and a pair of twin flashes in the coming month with any luck to complete my armoury.
Theres nothing in Nikon or canon, both are excellent.

[eccles]

If a camera body doesn't have image stabilisation I won't consider it. That's the end of the argument for me.
But getting back to Adrian's argument, you only have to look at some of the superb pictures from various different cameras that are gracing the competition threads to see that he's right.