dem beats

Ok... sooo... this is what I learned from the 50. It is awesome and the best reason to get on the 1.x tip is to have amazing image isolation. Makes pretty Bokeh too. I took a picture of a cup of soup and made the little sprinkle of bacon in the middle sharp, but 1 inch away it was blur. I also had fun doing OOF shots with transparent things. A glass with condensation on it was magic. What it did make me realise, is if I need to do closer shots(like I had to do with my Grandfather because we were stuck inside)the 50 worked great, but the surprise was.... I fell more in love with the speed light. The next few days I used it as a slave. My t4i has a flash so I can use that as a dim fill and then set the speedlight up on the side for effect. Or behind and REALLY isolate the subject. So with that flash I can do more composed portraits than I could with the 1.4. So I will get the speedlight before the prime.... and the awesome low f prime for cool shots later. A budy of mine showed me a move he filmed in 1.8 and it was awesome. His neborn son. Wicked cool. My imediate needs are this though... in July I need to start collecting media for the non profit I run. So it will be millions of kids running around. I hope outside, but if not the 2.8 will help. I will be doing a few portraits for our web page too. After that we will be having 2 aquatenial tyle community events where we have booths and I will need to get media there too. The 2.8 70-200L is arguably the best portrait lens unless you are really up close or can afford several primes. The higher zoom is more flattering and isolates better. More zoom also allows for more OOF blur. Doesn't change the DOF so much, but isolates the subject. So with the 17-135mm, albeit slow, will be great when up close for people. A real flash, would really be like having 2 flashes for me, and thus a better value than a new lens in that range. The 70-200 is a god of lenses for everything else. It is heavy. Good reason for me to loose weight and get to the gym. At least I won't miss my wifes graduation for her Masters degree though. :-)

THAT and that alone is a good reason to not go with it.

And I am talking 70-200 with IS and 2.8. My 135 mm has IS and it didn't fix it.

Maybe it is overkill. But I have needed several stops more light than my f5. And if you get the chance to mess with the 70-200 2.8 you will see. 70 on a cropped sounds long for portraits but the 130-180 is one of the most beloved portrait and headshot lenses in the studio. I have lost shots at 2 once in a lifetime events because of poor lighting. And my lens didn't open up enough. Seeing as the 70-200 is only slightly more money but has way better IS, and build quality and I also do more action shots than portraits it kills 2 birds. Also be fun when I go shoot my busy racing his bike.

My arguments also are kind of rooted in the fact that someone doesn't have lens or support structure like family or friends using one brand. Also, touching on what Stefan mentioned about his dad and Nikon. I have used one of the cheepest lower class rebel EOS cameras for 2 weddings as supplemental, and done just fine with the horrible kit lens and that cheep body. And I am a HORRIBLE photographer, and was worse then. But I was persistent and came out with some super fun shots. Now I am to the point where I am being limited by equipment. As I didn't have much money I got the t4i, for me, the cheepest camera that would be an upgrade in every way would be the 5Diii. The touch and swivel screen also helped me a lot as a newb. I don't use it so much now, but it did help. It also is amazing for video, which when I purchased it, was one of the main needs. I haven't used it much yet though. Now I am at the point where I need better low light and a bit more zoom. The 70-200L 2.8 ISii will be such a boon to me. I just learned a lot about portrait and how more zoom helps so while not ideal maybe it will work really really well. And if I move to a FF it will be perfect. With a "cheep" 1.4 extender I can get so much zoom I will be seeing panties from across the county. My 17-130 STM kit will stick around for video as it has some advanced functions for it, and for wide angle work and inside work. Maybe I will get a super low 50prime.... But a speed light and 70-200 will get me further and if I ever decide to do this for money and not volunteer my time. When I get a FF monster I will have the best glass and the best body.

Then go for it. I am not saying Nikon is a bad choice. Super interesting though.I know 2 concert photographs, one who tours with a band, another who covers local shows. Both use canon. When I sold cameras at the shop, I worked with one person who used Nikon professionally and he used it in a studio. The other 2 wedding guys use both Nikon and Canon. Nikon is cheeper. By 10% or more. In the fast full frames however the 1dx kicks the ass of everything from Nikon. So if it's fast sports or phottojournalism or low light the Canon demolishes the Nikon. By such a huge margin it's a little stupid. Way more FPS, way more low light capabilities, faster focus with more focus points and a smarter system. The Nikon is roughly 10% cheeper but the Canon is several stops better ISO, and 40% more FPS and somewhere between 10 and 5 times less shutter lag. The used market is bigger and it had more aftermarket support. Specs wise is one thing, but it is also easier to use. It's controlls allow for same ergonomic control in landscape or portrait. "That Nikon guy" has a good video talking about how is finds the Canon to basically be a generation ahead of the Nikon.... He is a Nikon fanboy from the get go. In the 5Diii vs the D800, again 10% price difference but better low light performance by several stops. Much more FPS. More versatile with storage, customized presets at one touch hard buttons for fast access, less menu work, lighter, less noise in higher ISO. Ken Rockwell makes a great discussion about it. Nikon in the studio on the tripod, Canon in the bag. With the arguments that you are presenting I am starting to get the itch to give one a chance. Maybe in the future if things go according to plan.J Maybe you will fall in love, maybe you won't be impressed. Some people feel the need for both. That Nikon d800 is near medium format level pixels. You can blow that up to fill a wall. But if you need to grab an action shot, having 30% or more frames in one second is huge. Having the button lay out redundant so when you turn the camera you can still control everything could mean everything. Better low light could mean getting the shot vs not.

There has to be a menstruation joke in there somewhere....

You are doing it to learn, way different. And after the neighbor saw me, she apologized with mouth hugs.

If you pixel peep, wich is stupid, but if you do, dpireview will also confirm some of the differences. Nikon uses some cool tech to get a higher color score etc etc. Canon's pro lenses however are second to none. They are nearly Leica and Zeiss level, but affordable and usable. I never heard anyone complain about the 70-200L from Canon but I have heard issues with the Nikor opposition.

Oh yes, I also wanted to point out that when Canon has a push to update the firmware, they do. Modders started making their own patch to work out 5dmkiii video and get more from it. Canon saw it, got involved and upgraded the software and made it legit through them. Similar with the 1Dx. Neither were released missing capabilities, however software fan boys found exploits and Canon's engineers responded and made what they had better based on new technology. I think that is kind of cool.

Those are for the 2 flagships. After that it gets muddy. Neither brand is bad. But again, someone stepping into it with no biased will have a larger pool to collect from in canon.

Then go for it. I am not saying Nikon is a bad choice. Super interesting though. I know 2 concert photographs, one who tours with a band, another who covers local shows. Both use canon. When I sold cameras at the shop, I worked with one person who used Nikon professionally and he used it in a studio. The other 2 wedding guys use both Nikon and Canon. Nikon is cheeper. By 10% or more. In the fast full frames however the 1dx kicks the ass of everything from Nikon. So if it's fast sports or phottojournalism or low light the Canon demolishes the Nikon. By such a huge margin it's a little stupid. Way more FPS, way more low light capabilities, faster focus with more focus points and a smarter system. The Nikon is roughly 10% cheeper but the Canon is several stops better ISO, and 40% more FPS and somewhere between 10 and 5 times less shutter lag. The used market is bigger and it had more aftermarket support. Specs wise is one thing, but it is also easier to use. It's controlls allow for same ergonomic control in landscape or portrait. "That Nikon guy" has a good video talking about how is finds the Canon to basically be a generation ahead of the Nikon.... He is a Nikon fanboy from the get go. In the 5Diii vs the D800, again 10% price difference but better low light performance by several stops. Much more FPS. More versatile with storage, customized presets at one touch hard buttons for fast access, less menu work, lighter, less noise in higher ISO. Ken Rockwell makes a great discussion about it. Nikon in the studio on the tripod, Canon in the bag.

Your example Sean, is one of the 2 times Nikkon beat Canon bad. One is in the studio with the D800, and the other is with the speed of assimilating video. You would however notice a huge disparity in what happens when you leave a quiet easy setting. I got to live with a Nikon for a bit as my uncle uses it. He just purchased it to have it, doesn't really do much with it, but it's around his neck at some family events. It is frustrating to work in anything but a calm situation. What makes it more interesting is that I used a Nikon before using a Canon. Until Sony gets much much better glass, I cannot give it the thumbs up. It is also a dog in almost every regard but FPS and the mega pixel number.... and I don't care about having tons of mega pixels. You are right about the leap frog game, and a lot of the time Canon is a few bucks more. The used market is bigger however, and there is more general support for their products from either Canon updating firmware or the aftermarket comunity upgrading the firmware themselves.

No doubt. I know a few pro's who use Nikon, but all of them also have ALWAYS used Nikon. It also is a huge difference in studio photography and not in studio. Almost all studio folks will have or want the D800 on the tripod. If they have to leave they will usually grab the 5Diii or the 1Dx if they do journolism.

Let's have a discussion. In the context of my initial comment, it was due to the fact Canon has a higher market share and unless something major happens more room for upward growth. Why would someone building a DSLR system chose to go the Nikon route? In almost every price point I find the Nikons to be lacking. There are a few gems, however, in most cases the Nikon product attemps to take from Canon. They also have what I would consider a failed game of oneupmanship when it comes to their design. They keep bumping up the mega pixels, but don't come close to what makes a larger impact on how the photos turn out. In a way I see it like BMW and Benz. But with one caveat. You are stuck with the major investment(glass)and will be forced to go with that brand for some time. Long term I see more reliability from Canon as I would Bimmer.

Ghost riden lol Hommie!

Oh... Suspenders are the shit BTW!!!

The rain is so weird. Half the store is getting POUNDED. The other is not getting anything. Then it goes away for a few min, then boom right back at it.

The gov deserves to get fucked without lube, however he kind of committed treason. Both sides have points. It is just happening during the worst administration I have seen in my lifetime.

Meh. 6 of one.

I would rather be crossfat than crossfit.

Quelle fromageI want some cheese now.

I would.

Wait... I think we are saying similar things from different perspectives.

I don't agree. Has NOTHING to do with it. They are around because they are the only mechanism that allows real glass to be mounted on. The megapixel wars in cameras are retarded since most of the lenses on the front can't resolve even a portion of what the sensor can.As soon as we defy Physics and make lenses that resolve better and are smaller the SLR will start to disappear. The other huge advantage of an SLR is noise performance. Exactly where a FF beats a crop although this advantage is short lived and will at some point be moot. The glass on the other hand won't be. My take is to buy a lens you will have later in life and a used camera body. Of course ease of use and P&S are about the same, but the results won't be. Hmmmmm. Why aren't mirrorless more popular? Just because of legacy? I don't buy it because they could make the lens mount on mirrorless match the DSLR lenses.