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

[Dave6223]

I realise that most pro's use Canon or Niknon to earn their livings and probably that explains the widespread use of Nikon and Canon.

But.......

I remember listening, many years ago to a radio interview with Patrick Lichfield. One of the listners rang in with a comment along the lines of "Yes but you're a professional photographer, and obviously you use the best ( Olympus ), obviously you get good photographs.

His reply was, "No problem, I'll lend you my camera and you lend me yours, and even if it's an instmatic I bet you I end up with better pictures than you.

The moral of that to me is that the photograph is in the eye of the photographer and the resulting photograph is an image that translates his feelings into a form that the beholder can appreciate. I see constant arguments amongst(probably gifted) amateurs over which is the better, how many more megapix it has, how much better the lenses are and so on.

Personally, my argument is, get to know what the limitations of your camera (whatever it is) and learn to exploit its capabilities.

Yes, yes, I know that technical excellence through technically superior equipment will give technically superior images. Notice I said images? Not photographs.

To me they aint "captured" or any of the other modern jargon. They are photographs. Things people, real people look at and admire, usually because they aren't capable of the same skill of the person who took it.

Rant over. But I hope that you will agree that an Olympus E510 is every bit as good as the latest 12 or 20 Mp technical megabeast, under some circumstances, that some people aspire to.

Dave

[Ray Dockrey]

I don't get the point of this post. If you are happy with what you have then it doesn't matter what others say. In reading this it looks like you are trying to convince yourself of this.

[cm_mtb]

I don't think Dave is trying to convince himself of anything. He's just pointing out that there's more to a great photograph than a great camera.

[Ray Dockrey]

I would agree if he wouldn't have used certain mfg names. I mean we all get this regardless of what mfg we use. I had somebody tell me the other day that I must have an incredible camera and that they were going to have to get one like it. I also had a lady tell me a while back that she got a new camera but it didn't take as good as pictures as mine did. When I asked her what she got it was the same camera I used. Of course that last one was a compliment to the job that I was doing.

[Dave6223]

The fact that I mentioned manefacurers is immaterial, since this is what most people aspire to. My point was that a whole culture seems to have grown out of owning particular brands of cameras because the people who aspire to own them seem convinced that this is the only way to become "good photographers".

The Cartier Bressons of this world owned cameras that were well behind modern technology, yet who would berate them because they didn't own the "best"

I'm sorry you didn't get the point of what I was trying to say, I was hoping we could have a discussion about photography, not an argument about who is trying to slag of particular owners camera's.

Sorry

Dave

[mjs1973]

Brand wars are nothing new. Ford vs Chevy, PC vs Mac, the list goes on and on...

Here is an interesting blog post that is worth reading about the reason why people participate in this type of behavior.

[Photo-John]

The more I use different cameras, the less concerned I am about which brand I use. There are certain types of technical photography where I have preferences - racing, mostly. But for the most part, give me any camera and I'll take good pictures with it. I had a reviewer tell me he can make any camera look good. I think I can do the same. Sometimes that's tricky when you're doing camera reviews. Will I mislead people about a given camera because of the sample photos I include?

The main thing is to know your camera and understand what its strengths and limitations are. I don't expect the Olympus E-620 to have image quality like the Nikon D90. And I don't expect the Panasonic Lumix G1 to have auto focus like the Canon EOS-1D Mark III. Knowing the limitations of whatever camera I'm using allows me to choose a good strategy to get whatever photo I need to get.

Regarding image quality - there are no longer any bad DSLRs. The lowliest current DSLR is better than the Canon EOS 10D I was making money with a few years ago. You can't buy a bad camera now. Of course, you do get more if you spend more. But I think there is a serious tendency with photographers now to get stuck on pixel-peeping and specs and lose track of the image. Content is what counts. You might have a better camera than I do (or a faster car, or a bigger truck, or a more expensive bike or whatever), but that doesn't mean you can take better pictures than me.

[Dave6223]

Much more eloquent than me John, but I guess thats where I was going.

Dave

[SmartWombat]

I don't expect the Panasonic Lumix G1 to have auto focus like the Canon EOS-1D Mark III.

Well I did expect the GH-1 to get the picture in focus !
Same lens on the E-P1 gave a much better image.
I think I have to take your advice, learn the GH-1 settings to get the best out of it.

[Frog]

Its just been discussed so much and most here will say its the person behind the camera and not the box he/she is using. One of the reasons I stayed here to begin with is the no brand wars except in good natured ribbing.

[Photo-John]

Its just been discussed so much and most here will say its the person behind the camera and not the box he/she is using. One of the reasons I stayed here to begin with is the no brand wars except in good natured ribbing.

I didn't really see this as a brand war discussion. I saw it more as a discussion of what's behind that. At the minimum, it was an opportunity for me to proselytize my belief that there are no longer any bad digital SLRs - only bad photographers

[Dave6223]

Hope you enjoyed the chat. Many thanks. And absolutely no brand wars here. I happen to believe they are all pretty good too.

Dave

[BlueRabbit]

I've been using a 5 mp camera for almost four years now, and my 8x10s still look great. I'm definitely an amateur, but I produce pretty decent images with my silly little Canon A series, circa 2005. I love it. The color depth is more than competitive with the new cameras my friends buy. I might buy another if they were still available. A 12 megapixel camera won't make your images better if they aren't good in the first place.

I have a slight pro-Canon bias, just because this one camera has been so good to me, but I know that past excellence is no indicator of future reliability.

[starriderrick]

Thanks Dave for posting, Mike, great blog.. This really sticks in my head...REALLY!!
These words are a sum-it-all-up of that link Mike posted.

Quote: scottbourne "Relax. This is photography and it’s supposed to be fun. Don’t be afraid. Go take pictures with ANY camera. Focus on the images, not the gear. You’ll be better for it."

Rick

[Glasstream15]

I won't buy anything that says Sony on it, but it really doesn't have anything to do with their cameras. Burned bad on a TV. That said, I have all Canon. Why. When I bought my XT I got a good deal on it. If I had gotten a better deal on Nikon or even Pentax that's what I'd have. I have always loved Olynpus optics but the smaller sensor turned me off at the time and I got a better deal on Canon.

But whatever equpment I have, the quality of my photos is up to me. My eye and my finger on the button. So, a long way around agreement with the premise of the OP.

[gryphonslair99]

I realise that most pro's use Canon or Niknon to earn their livings and probably that explains the widespread use of Nikon and Canon.

But.......

I remember listening, many years ago to a radio interview with Patrick Lichfield. One of the listners rang in with a comment along the lines of "Yes but you're a professional photographer, and obviously you use the best ( Olympus ), obviously you get good photographs.

His reply was, "No problem, I'll lend you my camera and you lend me yours, and even if it's an instmatic I bet you I end up with better pictures than you.

The moral of that to me is that the photograph is in the eye of the photographer and the resulting photograph is an image that translates his feelings into a form that the beholder can appreciate. I see constant arguments amongst(probably gifted) amateurs over which is the better, how many more megapix it has, how much better the lenses are and so on.

Personally, my argument is, get to know what the limitations of your camera (whatever it is) and learn to exploit its capabilities.

Yes, yes, I know that technical excellence through technically superior equipment will give technically superior images. Notice I said images? Not photographs.

To me they aint "captured" or any of the other modern jargon. They are photographs. Things people, real people look at and admire, usually because they aren't capable of the same skill of the person who took it.

Rant over. But I hope that you will agree that an Olympus E510 is every bit as good as the latest 12 or 20 Mp technical megabeast, under some circumstances, that some people aspire to.

Dave

Dave, I will agree with your above post when you show up with your Olympus 400mm f2.8 at one of the Big 12 football games I shoot. I believe that it might be quite a wait, because I don't believe that Olympus has such a beast.

My point being, one of the reasons that Nikon and Canon are on the top of the heap is they offer the most complete systems available. Does that make Sony, Pentax, Fuji or Olympus worse? Of course not. What it does mean is that they have more options available for those of us that need that type of gear.

Nikon and Canon strive harder to cover the entire market from the first day newbie picking up their first camera to the most seasoned and sought after paid shooter. When you work that hard and cover that much range you will have a larger following.

If your system of choice covers the needs and expectations YOU have then it is the perfect camera and the perfect system.

[OldClicker]

Dave, I will agree with your above post when you show up with your Olympus 400mm f2.8 at one of the Big 12 football games I shoot. I believe that it might be quite a wait, because I don't believe that Olympus has such a beast.

My point being, one of the reasons that Nikon and Canon are on the top of the heap is they offer the most complete systems available. Does that make Sony, Pentax, Fuji or Olympus worse? Of course not. What it does mean is that they have more options available for those of us that need that type of gear.

Nikon and Canon strive harder to cover the entire market from the first day newbie picking up their first camera to the most seasoned and sought after paid shooter. When you work that hard and cover that much range you will have a larger following.

If your system of choice covers the needs and expectations YOU have then it is the perfect camera and the perfect system.

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

[Anbesol]

Yeah found that unusual to bring up a 400mm f/2.8. Also Fuji and Nikon are on the same system, Fuji uses the Nikon mount.

[Dave6223]

Personally, there's no way I could afford a 400mm f2.8. I doubt that many others could either. In fact, I'm pretty sure a pro would hire one if needed. However........

You're right. I'm sure Olympus don't have one in their range. Given that they have only been in the photography BUSINESS for few decades, they would almost certainly have considered selling such a lens and come to a conclusion that it wasn't going to make them rich.....

[Loupey]

I think the point gryphonslair99 was making is that many of the high exposure events (where there are many pro shooters and even more super telephoto lenses) tends to show bias towards certain brands because of the lenses required to shoot those events. This only perpetuates the false impression that all pros favor only those brands.

I don't know what good it is to be upset by others' brand loyalty. It will always exist. Whether it is fishing boats or fishing rods, golf clubs or golf balls, car manufacturers, shoes, or the clothes on one's back, brands play a huge part and it cannot be merely scoffed away.

[Anbesol]

TF brought up the obvious point though - Olympus DOES have the 300mm f/2.8, which is nearly the same as a 400mm f/2.8 on a Canon APS.

Canon has the only 800mm prime on the market, as well (at least as wide as f/5.6).

No less, how many of us, even pros - will end up lugging around a 14 pound $8k lens? Whos really going to go into portrait photography with a 300, 400, or 600mm prime?? How about landscape photographers? Nope. I'm pretty sure those monstrous primes are only professionally needed on NFL sidelines and such, very niche.

[Ray Dockrey]

The reason I responded the way I did was I thought by reading the title the poster was trying to start a brand war. I apologize for my post as I now know what his intentions were. I agree with all above that all the brands have got so good that that it is not a real big deal what you shoot but it lands on the photographer to take great pictures.

[Dave6223]

The reason I responded the way I did was I thought by reading the title the poster was trying to start a brand war. I apologize for my post as I now know what his intentions were. I agree with all above that all the brands have got so good that that it is not a real big deal what you shoot but it lands on the photographer to take great pictures.

That's the LAST thing I was trying to do.

[Artov]

I will never be a brilliant photographer.

I was however a good photographer when I was young (steady hand, faster reactions) and had used the same camera for quite some time and so wasted no time in setup. So resulting in fewer missed opportunites.

Now I rely more on technology- particularly image stabilisation!

[Dave6223]

I will never be a brilliant photographer.

I was however a good photographer when I was young (steady hand, faster reactions) and had used the same camera for quite some time and so wasted no time in setup. So resulting in fewer missed opportunites.

Now I rely more on technology- particularly image stabilisation!

I'm the same, at 57 the hands aren't as steady as a twenty something. Now I don't rely on image stabilisation, I rely on a tripod. The old stuff is still the best, sometimes, lol.