Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sony
To the perennial argument about which is better, Canon or Nikon, we now have Sony making a very strong presence with its 24.6 megapixel sensor for under $3000. If you are making the leap to a top quality DSLR, how do you choose? John Mikes in yesterday's post on his excellent blog points out Canon's recent problems; he also refers us to a Canon insider whose blog, Fake Chuck Westfall , I have not yet explored. Finally, there's the Online Photographer who posted on this topic Wednesday. I urge you to read his post thoroughly to the end; it will point out the considerations that may be important to your style of photography.
My take on all this? I've never used or even seen a Sony DSLR. I used Nikons for film shooting and thought they were the best, even though I never had the top-of-the-line models. My limited exposure to their mid-line digital models has impressed me. In particular, I like the large and bright viewfinder. I have used Canon DSLRs for the last 4 years or so (currently a 20D and an Xti, and considering the 50D). With the investment I have in about a half-dozen lenses, I will not consider switching to Nikon or Sony unless either of them take a more giant leap ahead of Canon.
The main reason for this is cost. I do not make money from my photography. The second reason, which probably ought to be the first, is that even the lowly Xti can do much more than I have learned to ask of it. I am still learning and probably always will be. My capabilities do not come close to those of any of the DSLRs. During recent years I have learned that what improves my photography the most is practice. Sure, the better lenses are nice -- I'm still on the fence about Canon's 500mm f/4 (currently being more concerned about the weight than the cost). But when I look back at my early efforts, I am convinced that it is the time I have spent shooting that has brought forth the little improvement I have experienced.
This got to be too long, but John got me started with his post yesterday. Thank you John.