You buy a camera ..you are actually buying into the camera makers system ..most importantly you are buying into the lens system..
I like Cannon, own, and have owned many..but IMO on this choice the Nikon is the better Camera ( especially for someone coming from point and shoot ) ..now just to confuse you :) Have you thought about spending only half of that money on a "body" and getting a Canon 60D and two zooms with the mobney left over, so as to cover a range from say 20 to 350 or 400 between the two..and you get an articulating screen for video..
The 60D is not in the same league as the first two ..but for "general use"..? ..and the lenses are good to use on other canon models when/ if , you "move up" again..
And to further confuse you :) try the CHDK
download on your G 12 ..
what you can then do with your G 12 will amaze and delight you ..:)
I looked at the Canon 6D but the 7D won me over....well that was until I looked at the Nikon lol
Never looked at CHDK ...I'll have a look, but basically I need to spend some cash to shut my accountant up so a new toy will be fun and deductible ;o)
I shoot everyday with my 7D - I had a 300D then a 30D and I feel the 7D is outstanding quality for a good price.
I've used a Nikon recently for two weeks and I'm just not a fan of their cameras - Canon for me is by far the better quality.
I forgot to mention I would also go for the 24-105mm f/4 L IS usm lens - best all round Canon lens, you'll never take if off!
From reading these posts I'm beginning to suspect that my Yashica FX-3 may be out of date?! Maybe I too should invest in a new digi cam, put my Yashica in storage for a few more years and let it appreciate in value :)
You might also take a look at the Sony NEX7, it produces outstanding detail and accommodates just about any lens you already own with a few low cost adapters. If you depend on autofocus this is not the camera for you though. I just got a Nikon D5100 because it was compatible with lenses I already have. If you have Canon lenses you would do better to stay with their line because lenses are high and generally only semi-functional with adapters.
To compare cameras, dpreview dot com is the best place I know. They will show and tell you why or why not for any make/model.
For honest reviews of Canon and Nikon as well as pretty much every lens out there I always read the-digital-picture .com (no affiliation at all - just an excellent resource)
|You buy a camera ..you are actually buying into the camera makers system ..most importantly you are buying into the lens system. |
People always assume the results from my camera is from a Canon or Nikon and the results are what matters, not the brand names, and results can be had for far less expense.
... of course people often think some of my images were made in Photoshop and not all done in the camera so what do people know anyway? :)
The camera used to be "just a box" but not anymore as the CCD, camera CPU and the internal software is now often just as important as the lenses and sometimes more important as the best glass known to mankind cannot correct for artifacts caused by the camera software.
Also, Canon and Nikon aren't the only lens makers out there. Several brands make some really good glass and you can often save literally thousands (or tens of thousands) by picking a camera body with technology built into the body, like anti-shake in my Sony (Minolta tech) vs. putting that expense into every stinking lens.
My 100m macro is sharp as a tack, fast, and anti-shake, and it didn't cost me a small fortune either.
But as Leosghost correctly pointed out, the major expense you're buying into is a lens system so make sure you find everything you want before picking a system because I've been using the same lenses for about 20 years now and we're on the fourth camera body now with both digital and film cameras, but I never lost the investment in the lenses. Then again, I used to be a bit of a hardcore shooter and always carried two bodies as the shutter on one or the other died every now and then out in the field and the cost of the second camera body is much less than the cost of the trip.
Way back yonder when I used to be into photography (used to develop my own slides too) if you were a lens snob you used a Leica or something that had a Carl Zeiss lens on it. I've been shooting a Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ8 for several years and that sucker just keeps churning out good photos. I've been into the digital point and shoot for so long I don't even know if Leica/Carl Zeiss are still around.
thanks for the feed back guys - and I agree a lot has to do with the lens and just how it feels in the hands..I'm heading to the shop next week and I'll make a decision there as I'm 70% canon and they do make some nice lens although the L series would be nice but a bit rich for my pocket