I get a surprising number of emails from complete strangers who want my opinion about cameras and lenses... go figure :?. I usually refer them to one of Phil, Bjorn, or Ken Rockwell's reviews, but this particular fellow wrote me an interesting letter, which got me thinking about why I'm in the Nikon camp.
> I'd like to have your thoughts on the D70 vs the Cannon 20D. The Cannon 20D seems to get the nod in the photograghic magazines. But what do you think?
I love the way Nikon and Canon keep leapfrogging each other for momentary advantage. Canon has the edge right now with the 20d, but there's no doubt in my mind that Nikon will take it back with the "d200" later this year, only to lose it a month when Canon introduces the "30d" -lol. If you look at Canon's approach over the last few years, it seems they introduce cameras at almost double the rate of Nikon, so they often have the advantage. Not all of these are groundbreaking... some are just incremental improvements... but they do break the hearts of photographers who find their new techno-toys are discontinued only a few months after they've paid for them. Nikon, on the other hand, seems to take their time in introducing new models, making sure they are significant advances over their earlier models. And it's no chore to wait, because the current models are so well designed. Take the venerable d100 for example. It was introduced in February, 2002, and is still extremely viable.
I like Nikon's slower, deliberate pace. I place importance on 5 factors in digital photography.... composition, capture technique, glass, photo-finishing, and camera body. Of these, the camera body is the least important. In fact, I don't feel I can achieve optimum results until my camera is "invisible", so its technology doesn't stand between me and the subject. I want to be able to look through the camera, not at it. I find it takes me between 3,000 and 5,000 shots with a new camera to achieve that goal, so Nikon's slower rate of introductions suits me. It focuses my emphasis on improving my skills and and accumulating good lenses, rather than buying and adapting to new boxes.
> I'd like to have your thoughts on the D70 vs the Cannon 20D. The Cannon 20D seems to get the nod in the photograghic magazines. But what do you think?
I love the way Nikon and Canon keep leapfrogging each other for momentary advantage. Canon has the edge right now with the 20d, but there's no doubt in my mind that Nikon will take it back with the "d200" later this year, only to lose it a month when Canon introduces the "30d" -lol. If you look at Canon's approach over the last few years, it seems they introduce cameras at almost double the rate of Nikon, so they often have the advantage. Not all of these are groundbreaking... some are just incremental improvements... but they do break the hearts of photographers who find their new techno-toys are discontinued only a few months after they've paid for them. Nikon, on the other hand, seems to take their time in introducing new models, making sure they are significant advances over their earlier models. And it's no chore to wait, because the current models are so well designed. Take the venerable d100 for example. It was introduced in February, 2002, and is still extremely viable.
I like Nikon's slower, deliberate pace. I place importance on 5 factors in digital photography.... composition, capture technique, glass, photo-finishing, and camera body. Of these, the camera body is the least important. In fact, I don't feel I can achieve optimum results until my camera is "invisible", so its technology doesn't stand between me and the subject. I want to be able to look through the camera, not at it. I find it takes me between 3,000 and 5,000 shots with a new camera to achieve that goal, so Nikon's slower rate of introductions suits me. It focuses my emphasis on improving my skills and and accumulating good lenses, rather than buying and adapting to new boxes.
:wink: 
