On Dec 23, 2007, at 3:34 AM, Wayne Harridge wrote:
> I'd be interested in your decision making process Bob, e.g. why
> Nykon and not Canyon ?
My wife said Nikon. <g> Really, she did. She completely supported the
decision to go with one of the big Two, and recommended Nikon. "Why?"
I asked. (She's not a shooter. Never has been.) "Because I like
them," she said. (Anyone married as long as I've been married knows
how much weight and firepower are contained in those few words.)
Well, I was leaning that way anyway because way back in my Army days
and for a while after, I had a Nikon F with a new-fangled FTN finder
on it, and I loved that camera. That said, I was pretty much set to
go with the Canon 5D or it's successor, when Nikon announced a full-
frame camera. After looking at the specs, I decided that probably was
what I wanted, even though it' was to be marketed as a sports-
photojournalism camera. The notion of 12mp on a full frame sensor
reminded me of the 5D and how well it does what it does, plus the
newer processing technology Nikon brought to the table, not to
mention weather sealing that rivals Olympus. <g> And when the pre-
production models started dribbling out and I saw what the camera
could do, well, I went down to the not-so-local camera shop and
plopped down the plastic to ensure a place in line.
So far I have no regrets, though I do feel a pang or two for leaving
Olympus behind. (And a pang or two in shoulder and back from toting
the D3 around.) That E-3 sounds like a quality piece of work. But the
fact was, even staying with Olympus, I was going to have to get the
new E-3, not to mention the 7-14, 11-60, and the new 50-200 when it
comes out because the old 50-200 hunts way too much. So we're talking
a whole new system anyway, even staying with the old system where the
1.4x teleconverter would be the only real survivor from the present
kit. I also was seriously eyeballing the 90-250, which is one
expensive hunk of glass. And while not meant to disrespect Olympus,
the company's timing is, well, less than impeccable, and by choosing
Nikon, I'll get to spend a lot more money a lot more frequently to
keep up, thus keeping the photo-industrial complex healthy.
Either way I went, I was going to make a major investment, and in the
cold calculations of the business world rather than the emotional
suffering artist world, Nikon won the day. It's heavy, expensive and
real cutting-edge technology. I have customers asking for ever-larger
prints, and I want to do them without compromises. I've stretched
4/3s pretty much to the limit in that department, I think. I also
went through some of my best-selling shots and found the focal
lengths at which they were exposed were mostly less than 200mm, which
argues for full-frame more than cropped sensors.
There also are a few new things I'm going to try in 2008 which I'm
not ready to talk about publicly yet, and with those things, full-
frame fits best. (No, not weddings. I do not have the patience for
weddings. I have great respect for wedding photographers who can deal
with mothers-of-the-bride and still smile at the end of the day.)
Disclaimer: The above is not intended in any way as disrespect for
any camera system up to and including Canon. MY decision was based
mainly on my perceived needs, and what my wife said. <g>
--Bob Whitmire
Whipped Since 1973
www.bwp33.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|