I'm not a great fan of CanoNikonitis....

[gryphonslair99]

I believe Olympus offers a 300 f/2.8 which would give the same field of view as your 400mm on a cropped Canon. But the real point is that 99.9% of us buying DSLRs will never spend $7-8k for a lens, so it's pretty much irrelevant what they 'offer'.– TF

Actually it is very relevant. The point is Nikon vs Canon vs Olympus vs Sony vs Fuji vs Pentax vs Kodak vs yada, yada, yada posts are pointless and show a general lack of knowledge.

I choose Canon for one reason. It offered me the system that met my needs for what I shoot. I'm not a Canon fanatic that thinks Canon is the photographic god of gear. I have always said that any system is the perfect system for any shooter it meets that shooters needs. The gear only matters in terms of meeting needs. The rest falls on the photographers abilities.

The 4 3 system does not meet my needs for sports. If my interests were different would I use the 4 3 system if it meet the needs? Of course. Over my 35 years of shooting I have owned and shot everything on the above list except Fuji, and Sony and we use Fuji at work. Technically I guess you could say I have owned and used Sony as well only it was with the Minolta name on the body and lenses. Every system performed when I owned it or used it. They met the needs of the time.

Canon and Nikon offer the most complete systems on the market today. Many working photographers these days don't just shoot wedding, or fashion, or sports, or what ever. To make a living they cover a lot of areas which means a wide range of needs. The top two offer the widest rage of gear to meet those needs. To me it's fairly obvious, the companies that offer the widest range of gear are going to have the largest market share.

But I will repeat myself once again, any system if it meets a photographers needs is the perfect system for that photographer.

[Dave6223]

Actually it is very relevant. The point is Nikon vs Canon vs Olympus vs Sony vs Fuji vs Pentax vs Kodak vs yada, yada, yada posts are pointless and show a general lack of knowledge.

I choose Canon for one reason. It offered me the system that met my needs for what I shoot. I'm not a Canon fanatic that thinks Canon is the photographic god of gear. I have always said that any system is the perfect system for any shooter it meets that shooters needs. The gear only matters in terms of meeting needs. The rest falls on the photographers abilities.

The 4 3 system does not meet my needs for sports. If my interests were different would I use the 4 3 system if it meet the needs? Of course. Over my 35 years of shooting I have owned and shot everything on the above list except Fuji, and Sony and we use Fuji at work. Technically I guess you could say I have owned and used Sony as well only it was with the Minolta name on the body and lenses. Every system performed when I owned it or used it. They met the needs of the time.

Canon and Nikon offer the most complete systems on the market today. Many working photographers these days don't just shoot wedding, or fashion, or sports, or what ever. To make a living they cover a lot of areas which means a wide range of needs. The top two offer the widest rage of gear to meet those needs. To me it's fairly obvious, the companies that offer the widest range of gear are going to have the largest market share.

But I will repeat myself once again, any system if it meets a photographers needs is the perfect system for that photographer.

I totally agree with your last statement.

Many thanks all for an interesting discussion.

Parting shot. Professional photographers versus amateurs, no matter how keen, are in the tiny minority of photography sales. The rest of us either buy what we can afford, or if we are well off, buy what the pro's use because they think that £20000 worth of kit will make them good photographers. It won't.

Cheers all

Dave

[Asmarlak]

I think this is a valid subject that should be discussed as long as many of us think that a top of line camera is the secret to good photos.