Why did you choose your current camera?

[JDArt]

I thought it would be interesting to hear how people on this forum chose the brand of camera they're currently using. Care to relate your story?

[JohnC]

I picke my current brand (Canon) back in 1973 because it felt better in my hand than Nikon. I didn't like the placement of the shutter button on the Nikon F and didn't like the Photomic prism. Similar feelings about the Nikkormats control placement. Controls on the Canon (FTbN at that time) just fell under the right places for my hands/fingers. Cost was also a consideration as a high school student.

John

[Bill Huber]

I had sold all of my 35mm equipment so I had no lenses to worry about. I had only a P&S 35mm for a few years and then digital started getting better and better and I wanted to get back to taking real pictures.
I picked up and Epson and then found the Olympus C-2100 which was and still is an awesome camera. I had it for a year or two and then went on the the Olympus E-10. I love the color of the Olympus cameras.

After the DSLRs started to get better and more of them at cheaper prices I started looking at different cameras, I loved the Olympus color but was not sure if that was the way I wanted to go. When I got to the E1, well that was it, it fit my hand like it was made for it. That is a big thing with me, I am missing a finger on my right hand and a camera has to fit just right or it just does not feel good and can be hard to use.

It has water seals, a dust shaker and some excellent lenses and takes great pictures, what more could I ask for.

[EMSbyDay]

I had been shooting Canon since highschool when I bought an Elan II when they first came out. I chose to stay with Canon for a coupe of reasons 1) Familiar Layout and 2) keep all my lenses (although litle did Iknow at the timeI get rid ofthem all and get new ones..... Damn "L" bug)

This past spring I decided to go digital and bought a 300D and a whole pileof accessories. Camera is great an I was able to produce some great stuff, however this past month I upgraded to a 20D for its added features (servo focus in all modes, faster burst modes, more metering options, can shoot RAW + JPG simultaneously)

Had the first chance to really shoot it yesterday, will find out how it went once I download allthe pics.

[llpoolej]

I had a tough time choosing. I started out wanting a D70. Then someone had an E-1 and their photos were just so *rich* and I started researching the E-1. Then I looked at the 20D and there were some things about the 20D that were better. I really liked the speed of that camera but that was the only real huge plus. So, I sat and went back and forth for a couple of months. I decided that it was between the 20D and the E-1. The E-1 came with a much nicer lens and that dustbuster and weather sealing, well, man, for someone who shoots in dusty barns, was a HUGE plus.

I was joking around with my husband and told him I was going to bid a low number on an E-1 on Ebay(from Cameta) and he said, if you can get it for that, buy it. I got i for less than my max bid and the rest is history.

It was definitely the right choice for me considering my situations. I have shot in the rain, had puddle water splashed over the lens and camera, change lenses in the barn and still do not have dust on my sensor. I wish it did have more mp for cropping purposes, but I have printed 16x20 that looked so nice, they were bought off the wall of my MIL's day spa(they were not for sale at the time)

I love my lenses, the only lens left that I want is the 11-22. from 11mm-200mm(22-400 35mm effective) I can fit in a lowepro micro trekker 200.

All three of the cameras I narrowed my choices down to have their high points. The E-1 still feels by far the best in my hand. I have taken some flack from others for shooting with it, but I don't care. I still love it.

[Paul Shields]

Like llpoolej I went for Olympus. A lot of the decision was based on sentimental reasons as I've always used the OM series stuff in the past. I too checked out the Canon 20D, but in the end I didn't see any major benefit for going for the Canon - I thought that the E-1 was at least as capable and had some great pluses (no dust, build quality, lenses, price about the same as a 350D). Once you get over the mostly irrelevant minuses of noise and even megapixels the choice became much easier. If I was looking now then the Canon 5D is very tempting, though I have some reservations about it until I see more examples. The Nikon D2X also looks incredible - some of the best images I've seen were taken with that camera, but it was beyond my comfort zone price-wise.

I would still expect to see a slightly less noisy and higher MP successor to the E-1 - but I think that's a given anyway. I'm really happy with what I currently have - currently trying out the Zuiko 50-200mm lens and it's incredible. Roll on the E-3 .

[dc2]

I had Pentax /Nikons amongst other film cameras but never a canon until I went digital I must admit marketing and magazine reviews had a lot to do wth choosing canon.
Regrets Ive had a few but hey so did Frank Sinatra [just not with cameras]

[hartcons]

I used a number of olympus P&S cameras (in particular the c-740UZ is a nice camera) but wanted to become a blurmaster (apparently the little cameras have greater inherent depth-of-field so it's harder to blur things with them which I now understand has both its pros and cons). I had read about the e-1 but wondered about the limited lens selection and also didn't realize it was a 2x lens factor so I didn't think it had big enough zoom in the 50-200.

Wandered into a mall store one day and came out with a d70 (the sales guy said it was the best and it did seem like a solid camera and I could read the menu system unlike with the canon digital rebel). Then got frustrated with dirt blobs in my pictures from crud on the ccd and also from somewhat wobbly colors, dark pictures and noise (no ISO 100 on the d70) and about that time the e-300 appeared and I snapped one up and haven't regretted it. Now I shoot with the d70 (tons of lens/flash choices) and e-300 (I think that without a hump the e-300 is actually more of a "rebel" than the digital rebel) while my wife shoots with the c-740UZ (although I used it a few minutes ago for a macro shot of a spider eating lunch). Now I'm thinking if you could get an 8 megapixel fixed-lens camera that went say from 28-450 (35mm equiv) then that would be awfully convenient (yesterday I was shooting a vineyard from the roadside and didn't want to attract too much attention so I didn't take the time to change lenses even though I would have liked to).

I don't think I'd be looking to get a new d-slr soon (I did a 13x19 print from my d70 the other day that looked fine to me). Rather I'm thinking about wider lenses and maybe a tele-converter and extender tube for macro shots. That and learning the ins and outs of RAW and just the basics of what it takes to be a good photographer. I do think that vibration reduction in the body might be handy (assuming it was reliable and didn't cause the plane of the ccd to change, etc.) plus of course it would be nice to have more resolution on the LCD so you could judge DOF and sharpness. Plus one of those tiltable LCDs would be handy for tripod shooting.

[Kevin Barrett]

Originally Posted by JDArt

I thought it would be interesting to hear how people on this forum chose the brand of camera they're currently using. Care to relate your story?

I re-entered photography in 2002 with the purchase of an Olympus C5050z. Great little camera that I took over
25K shots with. Evaluating the DSLR field in 2004 put the Olympus E-1 at the top of my short list. Love that camera, but when Canon introduced the 20D that was the end of the E-1 pursuit.

I picked Canon earlier this year for the simple reason of performance per dollar. In February 2005, the 20D had no peer. At the tail-end of 2005 it still holds it's own and I contend that it is the best performance that your dollar can purchase even today.

I would like to get a second body in 2006. Possibly a 5D towards the end of next year when it's around $2795 USD
Lenses have a higher priority for me at the moment...* At this time, the 20D is adequate for my purposes.

Kevin

[ellette]

Mostly becauseI thought it was the most camera I could get in my price range. I wanted something fast with low light capability. I tried the 350 but holding it just felt weird so I did not want it at all. Held the D70, thought it was ok but not great. My mom has a Pentax and I wasn't excited with it. Haven't held a Minolta or an Oly but like the 20D's feel so I don't mind that I haven't held the others. I had gotten the 2000 rebel back in...surprise surprise...2000 and the fact that I was comfortable with it made me also think that I might have a little easier time getting used to the 20 D than I would some other brand.

Sara

[scoundrel1728]

When I first started thinking about getting back into photography, most semi-affordable digitals were still 480 x 640 pixels. I had come fairly close to deciding on a Sony Mavica FD-7 model despite its high price and am now really glad I decided to wait a while and rethink the decision instead. Next time, I was considering going with 35 mm film or with digital. I looked at the likes of the Canon Elan and the Rebel G but did not like the build quality. I also looked closely at the various digital offerings, including one of the Kodak 2xx models - I forget exactly which - the Olympus C-2000 and the Nikon 900s/910. About that time, Nikon came out with the 950 that had more pixels than the others and consistently came out at or near the top in comparisons on image quality.

The 950 also fixed a lot of the design problems in the 900s, including problems with the body hinge. The specs on the 950 were a bit marginal in some areas such as its light gathering power at full telephoto, the somewhat limited resolution, and its lack of a true manual exposure mode. I read every review at the time I could get my eyes on, but the one on dcresource.com was the one that finally decided me on the Nikon over the Olympus. The Kodak model had a reputation for slow operation, so I had eliminated it. I also went looking for sample images from the 950 to see if I could live with the image quality - something very difficult to do at the time with film cameras, by the way - and found that I could, quite nicely. It was then a question of doing the math to see when I could expect a break-even point to occur for digital vs. film, which I calculated to be about the 2000-3000 exposure mark. I was used to the rather slow exposure rate for 35 mm film of a roll or so every few weeks, so I figured the break-even point to take several years to reach. Nevertheless, I decided to go digital.

Fast-forward a couple of years and about 15,000 exposures. I had reached the 3000 exposure mark about the time the warranty expired and my rate was increasing. My camera had already had the battery door and power/mode switch replaced once already undre warranty and was showing signs of needing both replaced again soon. I was also running into the camera's inability to control the exposure easily under low-light conditions. It was definitely time to upgrade. My wife needed a camera anyway for her upcoming trip to New Hampshire, so I was able to talk her into letting me get a newer model and letting her have the 950.

I was on a limited budget, so I couldn't get the latest model. The Olympus C-2100UZ looked interesting, especially with its especially long zoom with reasonably good light gathering power and image stabilization, but the model lacked some features I would have liked to have had and finding one from a source I was willing to do business with was already getting difficult. I had come to love the articulated LCD monitor and the phenomenal macro capability of my Coolpix and was unwilling to give them up. I also already had the TC-E2 teleconverter and hadn't used it as much as I expected, so I rethought the idea of the superzoom. I ended up getting a reconditioned Coolpix 995 instead.

I still use the 995, but the poor thing is showing signs of age after some 25,000 shots or so and I am now looking for a dSLR. I carry my camera just about everywhere, including to work, church, and social events, and seldom leave the apartment without it. I couldn't do this with a dSLR, so I will probably keep the 995 for these purposes and use the dSLR for serious shooting and when I expect to encounter low-light situations that would be difficult to handle with the 995. Indeed, I may end up getting a second 995, which at the moment is available on keh.com for about the same price it would cost to overhaul my existing one.

[Narsuitus]

Many years ago when I bought my first SLR (a Miranda Sensorex), it broke three times within two years and spent a minimum of six weeks in the repair shop. The third time it broke was when I was hundreds of feet in the air covering the maiden voyage of a new airplane that the local university had just acquired. Thank goodness a borrowed backup camera that I carried allowed me to complete my assignment.

As soon as the Miranda was repaired, I traded it in for a Nikon SLR. I chose Nikon for two reasons:
1. It had a reputation for being rugged and reliable.
2. The other photographers on the newspaper staff were using Nikon and they offered to share their lenses with me. Had they been shooting with Canon or Minolta or Pentax (the Olympus OM series did not exist at that time), I probably would still be shooting with those SLR brands today.

[dmacgee]

I've got the KM 7D. I've been Minolta since the 70's when I bought my first Minolta. I had a brief foray with Canon but had too many problems withit (I think it was a Monday Camera)

About 8 years ago I purchased an Maxxum XTSi with a couple of lens, digital was too new and for what I wanted the cost was prohibitive. When KM brought out the 7D I borrowed one and like how it handled with my lens so I bought the 7D.

I looked at Nikon and could justify the cost because I'd have to go and get new lens and filters as well.

[ditto1958]

I started buying Olympus OM stuff back in 1982. When the time came to buy a dslr, I went in to the market with the idea that I should start with a blank slate. I looked at all of the different choices available. The Rebel felt and looked too cheap. The D20 was too big and expensive. The D50 also felt a little small and cheap (and the kit lens seemed kind of cheap, too). The D70 really intrigued me. In the end, the E-300 won out. It felt the best and offered the best value-- TWO very good lenses and a quality body for less than any of the competitors' offerings.

[NickP]

I started with the om-1, then the om-2, then the om-4. I always loved the small size, light weight/rugeddness combination. I still have my original om-2 and om-1 which actually got hit by a Rallye car so it has a cracked mount; it still works even though I would not put a long lens on it.
with digital I still have Oly's, the E series still has the small size and weight as well as those fantastic lenses.
Don't get me wrong, I would love a full-frame. But Photography is just a hobby for me and I cant justify spending 10g on a whole new setup (figuring comparable quality optics plus camera, this is even conservative).

[Olygirl]

It was because of budget/good reviews/dust reduction system and image stabilization. I wanted a light camera. I choose the Olympus E 420 but by the time I bought a dslr the E520 was cheaper and I just decided to go with that one.

[rlconklin]

My first slr was a Pentax K1000 (fully manual camera) back in the early '80's. I got it mainly to take pictures of the kids and because I wanted an slr. I used it for a couple years and started to really get into photography. So in 1987 I decided to upgrade. I looked around at all the different models and ended up getting the Canon EOS 650, the very first EOS camera made. After doing a lot of research and talking to people in several camera stores, I decided I liked the focsuing system in it better than the Nikons. The camera just felt better than the comperable Nikon offerings. I got away from photography for a long time (just didn't have the time available with work, kids, etc) and finally in 2007 using a friends digital camera and seeing what could be done in software, I decided to go out and buy a digital. I wasn't really concerned about brand, but after looking at reviews and looking at cameras in the stores, it appeared that both the Canon and Nikon were pretty equal, so since I already had a couple Canon lenses, I decided to buy a Canon Rebel XTi. Now that the kids are grown, I have a lot of spare time and have really gotten back into photography. I recently upgraded again to a Canon 5D Mark II (incredible camera by the way)got a couple "L" series lenses and am currently working on starting my own photography studio.

I originally went with Canon because it was the best available at the time (they had just introduced the EOS cameras and Nikon didn't have anything equivalent at the time), and have stuck with it since. I recently looked at the Nikons and didn't really see any advantage to switching. I see arguements on here all the time about which is better but, in reality, they are both just about exactly equal. Truth is, that you can't go wrong with either one.

[Brooks]

If we're talking about 35mm camera brands that morphed into DSLRs, I started with Nikon in 1970 because the studio where I worked used Nikons when they shot 35mm film and I could borrow lenses. I've stayed with Nikon and Nikon mount cameras for location and some studio work as I switched to Digital. Currently using a Nikon D3x both on location and in the studio.

For medium format film work I started with Hasselblad, back in the seventies, again because that was the camera of choice in the commercial studios where I worked at the time. I still have Hasselblad cameras and lenses today though I don't use them much. Then I switched to Mamiya RZ Pro II camera and lenses because I wanted a larger format than the Hasselblad that didn't need as much cropping for standard page sizes. I preferred the bellow focusing of the Mamiya as well. Later I added a MF digital back for studio digital work.

For Large format, both 8x10 and 4x5, I've used Sinar since the early 80s. I've since sold the Sinar 8x10 but still have the 4x5 which I can still use with the same MF digital back though I don't use that MF digital back much anymore.

[Douglas]

My father used a Nikon F for shooting in the 70's when he worked for the fire/police dept. When he passed, I started messing around with it. The first camera I bought when the F's meter stopped working was the Nikon N90s. From there, my first digital was a D70 and eagerly awaited the D90, and am happy I have it. And the more I learn, the more I look forward to using it for events

[RocketRick]

I bought my first DSLR at the end of last year. I had a fair number of cameras before that: from Instamatic 110 and 126 cameras (with Magicube flashbulbs!) when I was a kid, to several Kodak and Fuji digital point & shoots in the past decade or so.

I had always wanted a 35mm SLR when I was younger, but couldn't afford one. (Medium or large format was just a fantasy.) Digital SLRs, until recently, I had always seen as out of my price range, too. So, I stuck with inexpensive point-and-shoot film cameras, and later digital ones once the quality got "good enough" to make small prints from.

When I started researching DSLRs, I quickly realized that the number of megapixels had ceased being relevant 5 or 6 years ago. So, I didn't worry about that at all. Also, I saw that the camera reviews of the different brands were largely nitpicking tiny differences in performance between the brands that I'd never see in actual practice.

I shoot a lot of daytime rocket launch photos in the desert with my rocketry club. So, I need good long handheld telephoto performance, and I don't really care about high-ISO noise. (Even when I shoot indoors, I don't care about high-ISO noise, because I use adequate light, usually in the form of flash.) I do care about image stabilization, and I prefer a "crop" sensor, because I get a longer effective focal length from a smaller, lighter, and less expensive lens.

Shoping around, the E-520 2-lens kit was a perfect fit for me. Its in-body stabilization gave me a hand-holdable 300mm effective focal length (with the 40-150mm kit lens), as well as a versatile 28-84mm effective focal length (with the 14-42mm kit lens) for all of the typical "family photo" shooting I might need to do. With my frequent shooting in the desert, the most effective sensor "dust buster" setup in the industry certainly couldn't hurt. And, the price was definitely right: I got the 2-lens E-520 Oly kit for about the same price as a single-lens, non-stabilized kit from the Canikon competition.

I've not regretted my purchase, at all. I've been having some fun with some adapted OM-series manual focus lenses (also image stabilized...), and recently bought a 9-18mm (18-36mm EFL) wide-angle lens to let me get a different perspective on things from time to time. The Oly glass is exceptional -- even in the standard-grade lenses that I've been able to afford so far.

- Rick