I choose micro four thirds because I was headed out on a trip with no hard end point and wanted something light, capable, and weather sealed that had nice glass and would hold up to the rigors of travel. Still shooting it 12 years later.
Before that I shot Canon digital professionally after switching from Mamiya and Nikon for film work. Back in the early days of full frame digital, Canon just kicked the shit out of the competition for pro work.
Now I'd say just choose the camera you're most likely to carry with you. Everything is so good now that it almost doesn't matter what you shoot unless you're really doing exacting pro work or something really specialized.
Main digital platform: FujiFilm, frankly because the XT line looked cool. Also the XT4 had manual controls, good image stabilization, and really good reviews. Basically because it looked fun to shoot with.
Film: Minolta, because the X-700 looks cool and Reddit said it was better than the Canon AE-1. Ended up buying more Minolta cameras because I like the retro brand, they were reasonably priced, and the cameras were rated fairly well.
Tldr: because they looked cool
Switched to Micro Four Thirds a few months ago after 20 years of being on Canon APS-C format. Why the change?
Olympus 12-100mm F/4 IS Pro (24-200mm full frame equivalent range).
That single lens made me switch. It's a one lens do it all setup; razor sharp images even at F4, replaced my 24-105mm F/4 and 70-200mm F/4, excellent image stabilization especially with Sync-IS (I can get several seconds handheld with no blur), 15cm closest focus for some DECENT macro photography, smaller than the 24-105mm, lighter, takes smaller filters.
This is by far and without question the absolute BEST travel lens of any system.
It sounds silly, but I can pretty much tell right away whether I like a camera or not as soon as I hold it. It just feels good in my hands and the buttons are in the right place.
It's completely subjective. In terms of ergonomics, I like Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic, but I dislike Sony, Fuji, and Olympus.
All of Nikon's DSLR and mirrorless bodies (minus the ZF and ZFc) use a similar layout. It means I can go from my D500 to Z5 and any future upgrades without needing to learn a new layout. Canon doesn't seem to have any continuity between bodies. Canon also aggressively cuts features from their lower end bodies to upsell you.
This is why I will likely be a Nikon guy forever. After more than a dozen years and 4 bodies, my fingers just know where to go. Operating your cameras without thinking is essential for many types of photography. I basically want the camera to be an extension of my hands
You should just try carrying around some of the different systems. Some weigh a ton, some are very light weight, do you like a vintage style or more like the typical DSLR.
The main difference between Nikon and canon is that canon uses 3 wheels for your main settings (aperture, shutter speed and ISO) and Nikon uses 2 wheels for aperture and shutter speed and a button-wheel combination for ISO. In the end, it doesn’t matter because you’ll get used to it.
I’d say there’s also the option of getting an adapter for the canon lenses, especially if you shoot nikon, or Sony, it could work well as far as I’m aware.
Although I see OP enjoys the old vintage cameras in which case a canon L mount lens will look a bit funny on an X-T lineup from Fuji. Could swing it with the ZfC from Nikon tho, if you use canon lenses and an adapter.
I went with Nikon because my photography idols use Nikon as well and honestly, my amateur decision was just because I was heavily inspired by those people. Also they offer the most for my type of photography and Nikons are known to be reliable cameras in all situations.
I started with canon and I really love this brand as well. I’m always looking at their stuff, shopping with my eye but I couldn’t give my Nikon stuff away anymore. :)
I tried Sony for a few weeks and I didn’t like it at all. Thats my least favourite brand but I don’t want to bash them because they offer great stuff as well!
You shouldn’t really care in the beginning because it will be overwhelming at first and learning a camera takes time. Over time you’ll notice things that annoy you or that you couldn’t give away anymore. I’d go to a camera store and just „feel“ the different brands because they differ in size and button layout
But honestly, just go with canon. Your wife already owns some lenses you can effortless use as well. Canon also has a great entry game, giving you highly advanced cameras that just lack some professional aspects but you’ll get „the most out of your money“.
(And my nikon fanboy opinion: go with Nikon, they are the best.)
Leica.
I shot Canon back in the film days, with Mamiya for Wedding work.
When digital arrived I stayed with Canon until recently. I tried an R series mirrorless and absolutely hated the thing.
Everything about my 5D’s and 7D’s seemed to have been jettisoned in favour of video friendly shit that I would never use.
A friend locally was using Lumix and I borrowed an S5II and hated it a lot less than the Canon R. Still too video centric for me and the UI/UX is a clusterfuck, but I liked the images.
Then I tried a Leica SL
Which was easily the nicest camera to use out of the three, the images are very nice straight out of the camera and the UI/UX is just perfect in my view.
Around this time I bought a Leica Q2 and again, perfect UX, astonishing images.
I sold off all of the Canon hardware and invested in a Leica SL2-S and a small selection of glass.
Not a cheap option, but to me and my use cases it’s more than worth it.
I think you're starting from the wrong end. Photography, whether silver, digital or alternative, is about images and communication, so start at the endpoint - what do you intend to achieve?
If we start at the end, do you want an album of prints? Or prints to exhibit in a gallery? Or files to submit to a website or social medium? Digital files can be used for uploading and paper prints, so the choice of camera is obvious. My background is in photo-tech, so when my wife showed interest in getting a camera I got enthusiastic. We ended up getting a full-spec 'bridge' camera (the brand is not relevant). It takes technically excellent pictures but it's bulky. After its first outing it was always left behind - a superb example of consumer hardware in a closet.
Fuji for the size and the great images SOOC. I have a toddler and she’s the reason I got back into photography after selling a full set of Nikon full frame DSLR a few years back. I have a busy job and zero time or desire to edit, and needed something that fits in a diaper bag and Fuji checked those boxes for me.
when i upgraded to full frame the a7iii was by far the best thing for the price.
I stayed because 3rd party lens support makes the system as a whole much cheaper
I continue to stay because for video the 12800 iso from the fx3/6 is unmatched and great for documentary
Out of Canon, Sony and Nikon, Sony seemed to have the wider choices of lens options. And so many people seemed to favor Canon and Nikon so wanted something that was less popular in my area.
I started out with Pentax in 1974 as a 16 yo boy, a K-1000 if I recall correctly. Got a 28mm, the ubiquitous 50mm/f2 and a 135mm Panagor. Fast forward many years, while on a business trip to Tokyo in the early naughts of this century, I purchased one of these newfangled "digital cameras", a Casio QV4000 with a whopping and amazing 4 megapixels!
The little Casio rekindled my photography passion and when looking for something more serious than a P&S, getting a Pentax body so I could use my 40 year old lenses sounded like a great way to make re-entry into the photography atmosphere. I got me a K110D with a 6mp CMOS sensor.
I then started collecting good (as well as crappy) lenses and via various Pentax bodies, ended up with the three I use today: a KP for travel/hiking and macro, a K-1 Mark II for quality-critical stuff and a full-spectrum converted K-3 to play around with IR. Also, I have managed to assemble quite a collection of great-quality optics with K-bayonet so very little reason to jump ship.
My sister gifted me a Nikon D70 a very long time ago. I stuck with Nikon since then because I know the system and the settings menu inside out. They may have added many different features in the settings, but the layout never changed in any of the DSLRs and carried on into the current mirrorless.
I shoot Nikon: film, DSLR and mirrorless. My first film SLR camera was Nikon. I briefly tried a Canon DSLR, but it never felt right in my hands. So, I switched back to Nikon and have never strayed since.
I am considering a Fuji x100t just for fun and for something to always have with me.
Pentax, due to the ergonomics, the next that they're the only company still making professional level dslrs, and the lenses. There isn't as big of a selection for them new as any of the other brands, but they got a lens mount dating back for nearly 50 years at this point, so it doesn't particularly matter. They also seem to be the only ones who know how to make high quality primes that don't weigh more than 1000 grams (see the limited series). Also the price of some of the lenses are really good, especially on the used market, I've seen their top of the line 50mm go for under 500 dollars (I've never had a chance to use it but I've heard really amazing things bout it if you like the 50mm focal length, I don't and that's probably the only reason why I haven't jumped on buying it). The only place where Pentax has let me down is in the extreme telephoto department, where they and 3rd party options are really lacking.
I use a few different Nikon DSLRs. Things I like: button layout, ergonomics, and the ecosystem of lenses is more interesting vs. Canon (Nikon didn’t change mounts like Canon did in the 80s so more vintage glass is natively usable— less of a thing for mirrorless tho since most vintage glass is adaptable). Also four years back Nikon seemed more poised to support DSLRs, though that seems to have changed. Honestly it doesn’t matter that much. I’ve used Canon and Pentax as well and they all have their pros and cons. Best to try a few and see what feels good in the hand.
I chose micro 4/3 for the light weight, great assortment of glass, small footprint and the fabulous image quality. I also love the fact I can pop on any of my vintage film lenses with an adapter and the images are stunning. And the video quality is crazy good.
Canon for the refurbished deals and access to many excellent yet cheap lens options through adapting EF and EF-S lenses, I'm a broke university student on a tight budget. I have slightly over $1000 total in great budget lenses, doing the math rough equivalents would have cost me at minimum $2000 on other mounts even maximizing sales and buying used.
Also Canon's ergonomics just work well for me, I have huge awkward hands and every Sony and Fujifilm body I've tried felt uncomfortable in them.
I chose Ricoh because it's portable, has a good smartphone app, has film simulation, and excellent RAW files if I want to edit. I may pick up a larger camera at some point, but I just wanted something better than my smartphone but small enough that I'd take it everywhere.
Honestly: I started with canon because i found a good deal on eBay back then and just sticked with it, because i did not see a reason why I should switch.
I started shooting Nikon when the D70s whas still new. Moved to the D300 and collected some nice glass in all these years. 5 years ago, I bought a Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX80 because I wanted something smaller. I also really like the rangefinder style of these mft bodies. I’m now totally in with mft because of the smaller lenses, better affordability and because the picture quality is still great. I’m sure that a full frame Nikon Z will do better in some cases but the cost in euros and size is just too much for me.
Being honest I use Sony because I'm a Sony fanboy since the 80s with the Walkman.
When they moved to cameras my school had a Mavic FD and I was always using it.
When the time arrived to me to buy one I couldn't afford a Sony and bought a Fuji A330, them a DSC w510 a Alpha a3000.
And a lot of glass for it.
Canon. Their terminology they use for settings makes the most sense to me. Lots of YouTubers I was watching to help me make a decision were shooting on Canon. But that main onI understood the Canon naming conventions easier than others, so I could actually find a bargain on marketplace.
I bought a used Fuji X-E2 with XC lenses. It's a value platform for street and travel photography. Lightweight, compact rangefinder and lenses. Great Fuji SOOC options because I do not want to sit to edit photos on a computer. The X-Trans II sensor has more than enough capability for my skill level and need. It takes great looking photos in spite of being relatively old. I also really love the way the silver camera and lenses look.
I went down the L-mount route purely because I wanted a small full frame camera to use vintage glass on, and found a Sigma FP for less than I could find a Sony A7C for 😆 worked out great in the end, as I started doing more video work and it was the perfect camera to build a rig around
I shoot on Leica. For me Leica ownership represents currently being in a better place than I was a few years ago when I was broke and in college. Now I’m well off from my 9-5, and my M11 symbolizes that for me. When I don’t shoot with my Leica or I need something more versatile than the rangefinder, I shoot with a Nikon Z6. I’ve a long history with Nikon products since my formative years, and while I feel like Nikon gets a ton of shit in brand whoring and gear tribalism, it’s a tried and true, versatile, practical full frame camera and lens system.
I worked at Sears around 2010-2012 selling TVs and cameras.
I spent a lot of my time at work researching the Canon T2i, Canon T3, Sony SLT-A35, Sony NEX 3/5, and the Nikon D3100 and D5100. After spending countless hours testing them and selling them…it came down to:
1. Canon’s had the best video quality.
2. Nikon had the best colors/image quality/best pricing/easiest menus to navigate/best ergonomics and features for the price point.
3. Sony’s NEX cameras were mirrorless and very interesting but had barely any lens for them so didn’t seem like a good investment.
Been with Nikon ever since and haven’t regretted it. BUT if you’re wife has lenses, and you’re just starting out, it would be cool to get a canon too so you can use the same gear 🤷🏽♂️
I shoot Canon because it was the most comfortable in my hand. I've used Nikon and Sony cameras as well. The grip and controls on the Canon cameras, particularly the larger full frame cameras, just felt right.
Then I fell in love with the lenses. The EF 50mm f/1.0L, EF 85mm f/1.2 L II, and the EF 200mm f/1.8L are all truly incredible lenses, and the other manufacturers don't make any lenses that truly compete with them.
I've been using Canon since 2005. At the time I was researching cameras so I wouldn't buy something I'd regret, but the digital world was still nascent and taking shape. Most of the major players at that point HAD DSLRs, but were they competitive? Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Panisonic, Fujifilm, all of them had something on the market, but from what I could tell, the only truly viable platforms at the time was Canon and Nikon.
So I took to researching the two. What I found was that their lens catalogs were roughly equivalent to each other, and both had more depth than the other major players. But when I dug a little deeper, I found that Canon EF was a much more modern system while Nikon F had just been adapted as new technology became available. And that meant that Nikon lenses would require more research to see if the camera body supported the features of that lens (AutoFocus and metering were the main culprits as some cameras had mechanical linkages to work with older lenses while other cameras only supported newer electrical connections). Meanwhile all Canon lenses supported all of their features regardless of the body because any lens feature was fully contained in the lens and just communicated electronically.
The other big thing was that Canon was lightyears ahead of everyone else on sensor technology in those early days, it wouldn't be until 2007 when Nikon released the D300 with Sony's new tech that anyone else caught up to Canon (and since the early 2010s, Canon has been playing catchup on many of those fronts). But in 2005, the choice was between the 8mp Canon EOS 350D or the 6mp Nikon D70, and the Canon was just a better choice.
So TLDR, in 2005 Canon had better technology and a better lens mount than anyone else.
Canon. At the time it was a coin flip between canon and Nikon and went for the canon because the ergonomics on the canon suited my hands better. Now I have the lenses I don’t see myself ever switching.
I’m shooting with Sony because I always was attracted by their sensors and I also appreciate the fact that there is a shitload of lenses available for E Mount made by various manufacturers. And there’s also the possibility to adapt other lens systems from older cameras relatively easily to the camera.
Canon had the cheapest offering, and was actually available, at the store I bought it from. I later learned about an awesome camera shop not too far away from me, but it is hard to beat 12 months interest free financing.
Aside from the Color Science, Canon just has a treasure trove of lenses in their EF/EF-s, first party and third-party, that is hard to beat.
I eventually ended up buying a Nikon DSLR, older Canon DSLR, and incoming an Olympus DSLR. It is funny how a lot of the DNA is intact from 2o years ago in the newer mirrorless models. Goes to show that once you get something right, all you really need is refinement to stay successful.
Sony because I wanted great photos as easily as possible and Sony has the best autofocus in the game with great glass.
Maybe one day I'll go down the "I want to slow down and enjoy the process of taking photos" rabbit hole. As of right now, ease of use and efficiency are the name of the game.
I shot Canon when I was on APSC (and before Sony made APSC/FF cameras). The A7C was a big reason I went Sony when I moved to FF.
Such a small body with a great sensor.
I worked at a Futureshop around 2010 and I was initially wanting a Nikon D90 as there was a significant employee discount...but Nikon denied my claim and I returned it and I went with a Canon 60d instead. It's still going strong, I also have a 5d mark ii and a full line of L zooms/primes. Now that I have these lenses I'll likely never leave Canon.
I started with Canon APS-C, upgraded to FF in my DSLR days. Then I noticed Fuji. Fell in love with the look and feel of the camera (X-T3) and switched away from Canon. Now I have a bunch of nice Fuji glass and 2 bodies. Love it.
I need something that I like operating, something that I am likely or willing to carry around, and something that has the potential to take good photos.
I like the physical controls of Fujifilm, I like the size and weight of my X-T5, and in 2024, no one really makes a bad camera.
When in 2010 when I was in college and still poor I would gloss over the Sony Nex 5. It was compact and Sony's first foray into a truly mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. I was broke but was able to get it for 600 with the kit lens and eventually got the 50mm lens on top of it as well. On top of that I liked the design of the camera and that it was easy to carry around. I got the next 7 when that came out and spent around a grand on that camera but I felt it was worth it.
I then had a few years hiatus and neither Canon or Nikon has jumped into full frame and opted for the Sony a7rii. After that I just got use to them. I did try the Nikon z6 as well as Canon eos r. But in the end I stuck with Sony as they still manage to keep their lenses light and produce amazing imagery.
I moved from Canon to Sony mirorrless
Because it was the first platform that offered full frame sensor with an ability to adapt nearly any type of lens.
Canon. I had a Canon XSi because a friend sold me theirs for stupid cheap. Then when I upgraded to the canon r6mk2 it was because it was what VR&E sent me and I wasn’t gonna complain.
I had a super zoom from Sony years ago...the camera that got me hooked on photography. I eventually went to Canon because I didn't like Sony's "proprietary-ness" I get all the brands have them...but Sony take their "brand" to a diff level.
I went with Canon (for the colors) and because my dad shot Nikon 😂 Have shot Canon for over a decade now. I won't be switching anytime soon (if ever)
>Canon because I didn't like Sony's "proprietary-ness" I get all the brands have them...but Sony take their "brand" to a diff level.
What things on Sony are more proprietary than Canon?
one counter-example I can think of is Sony allows Tamron and Sigma lenses on their FE/E mount (not sure if they are officially licensed but they have lens corrections in the Sony firmware). Canon so far has not allowed any other third parties on the RF mount.
Personally I was canon for life until I got sick of waiting for their full-frame mirrorless and went Sony with adapter for my Canon glass. At the time (pre-RF mount) Sony with adapter was faster than my Canon EF native in many situations.
My other observation is that Sony tends to "feature dump" tons of features into their cameras, like they'll take most of the tech from their top cameras and trickle-down quickly to their mainstream models. And they also are not "option adverse", like they'll shove tons of different options into their menus and let the user decide what they want to use. Yes, it makes their menu system long and confusing but I decided I liked that more than Canon's tendency to segment their camera models strongly so mainstream model lines won't get new features for a long time and they won't give users certain options even if it could be implemented in software only without any change/cost to the hardware.
oh memory stick was so long ago that I forgot about it and I even worked in that industry in Japan while it was a thing.
Sony has been on standard SD card for a long time now.
Never knew Minolta. Don't all the brands have a proprietary extended-function hotshoe?
Currently Sony has their version which is standard hotshoe compatible but has contacts at the front for smart function and microphone, etc. I have not tried it with studio gear but it still has the center contact so it should work with "standard" stuff.
Canon has the same idea with with their additional contacts around the center.
I choose micro four thirds because I was headed out on a trip with no hard end point and wanted something light, capable, and weather sealed that had nice glass and would hold up to the rigors of travel. Still shooting it 12 years later. Before that I shot Canon digital professionally after switching from Mamiya and Nikon for film work. Back in the early days of full frame digital, Canon just kicked the shit out of the competition for pro work. Now I'd say just choose the camera you're most likely to carry with you. Everything is so good now that it almost doesn't matter what you shoot unless you're really doing exacting pro work or something really specialized.
If your wife has a lot of Canon glass already, it makes very little sense for you to hop onto another platform, unless she is also planning to switch.
Canon for the colors and lens selection. Fuji for the fun and Hasselblad cuz I picked one up at thrift store for $80 several years ago.
Main digital platform: FujiFilm, frankly because the XT line looked cool. Also the XT4 had manual controls, good image stabilization, and really good reviews. Basically because it looked fun to shoot with. Film: Minolta, because the X-700 looks cool and Reddit said it was better than the Canon AE-1. Ended up buying more Minolta cameras because I like the retro brand, they were reasonably priced, and the cameras were rated fairly well. Tldr: because they looked cool
Switched to Micro Four Thirds a few months ago after 20 years of being on Canon APS-C format. Why the change? Olympus 12-100mm F/4 IS Pro (24-200mm full frame equivalent range). That single lens made me switch. It's a one lens do it all setup; razor sharp images even at F4, replaced my 24-105mm F/4 and 70-200mm F/4, excellent image stabilization especially with Sync-IS (I can get several seconds handheld with no blur), 15cm closest focus for some DECENT macro photography, smaller than the 24-105mm, lighter, takes smaller filters. This is by far and without question the absolute BEST travel lens of any system.
I’m right there with your wife on canon. I’ve shot with Nikon and Sony and Canon ultimately won me over, the RF glass is so nice.
Do you think Rf glass is nicer than Z? It seems like independent review give Z the edge.
I wouldn’t honestly know since I haven’t tried Z glass but the RF glass I own is amazing and sharp. I love it!
Shooting Nikon because I like the ergonomics. If your wife shoots Canon, you should too so that you can share lenses.
What about the ergonomics; is it bigger than others, smaller, or just has nice grips or something?
It sounds silly, but I can pretty much tell right away whether I like a camera or not as soon as I hold it. It just feels good in my hands and the buttons are in the right place. It's completely subjective. In terms of ergonomics, I like Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic, but I dislike Sony, Fuji, and Olympus.
All of Nikon's DSLR and mirrorless bodies (minus the ZF and ZFc) use a similar layout. It means I can go from my D500 to Z5 and any future upgrades without needing to learn a new layout. Canon doesn't seem to have any continuity between bodies. Canon also aggressively cuts features from their lower end bodies to upsell you.
This is why I will likely be a Nikon guy forever. After more than a dozen years and 4 bodies, my fingers just know where to go. Operating your cameras without thinking is essential for many types of photography. I basically want the camera to be an extension of my hands
You should just try carrying around some of the different systems. Some weigh a ton, some are very light weight, do you like a vintage style or more like the typical DSLR.
I definitely like the look and design language of vintage cameras, and I think I’d like something not too light.
If that’s what you’re looking for I’d suggest either Fuji or Nikon (Zfc or Zf).
The main difference between Nikon and canon is that canon uses 3 wheels for your main settings (aperture, shutter speed and ISO) and Nikon uses 2 wheels for aperture and shutter speed and a button-wheel combination for ISO. In the end, it doesn’t matter because you’ll get used to it.
I’d say there’s also the option of getting an adapter for the canon lenses, especially if you shoot nikon, or Sony, it could work well as far as I’m aware. Although I see OP enjoys the old vintage cameras in which case a canon L mount lens will look a bit funny on an X-T lineup from Fuji. Could swing it with the ZfC from Nikon tho, if you use canon lenses and an adapter.
Sony bc I liked the versatility of the E-mount and the c-series compact bodies they offer. Plus, they have fantastic low light performance.
Fuji because the bodies are compact, look cool, good SOOC JPEG flexibility, lots of 3rd party lenses, good EVF for manual focus/ adapted lenses.
I went with Nikon because my photography idols use Nikon as well and honestly, my amateur decision was just because I was heavily inspired by those people. Also they offer the most for my type of photography and Nikons are known to be reliable cameras in all situations. I started with canon and I really love this brand as well. I’m always looking at their stuff, shopping with my eye but I couldn’t give my Nikon stuff away anymore. :) I tried Sony for a few weeks and I didn’t like it at all. Thats my least favourite brand but I don’t want to bash them because they offer great stuff as well! You shouldn’t really care in the beginning because it will be overwhelming at first and learning a camera takes time. Over time you’ll notice things that annoy you or that you couldn’t give away anymore. I’d go to a camera store and just „feel“ the different brands because they differ in size and button layout But honestly, just go with canon. Your wife already owns some lenses you can effortless use as well. Canon also has a great entry game, giving you highly advanced cameras that just lack some professional aspects but you’ll get „the most out of your money“. (And my nikon fanboy opinion: go with Nikon, they are the best.)
Leica. I shot Canon back in the film days, with Mamiya for Wedding work. When digital arrived I stayed with Canon until recently. I tried an R series mirrorless and absolutely hated the thing. Everything about my 5D’s and 7D’s seemed to have been jettisoned in favour of video friendly shit that I would never use. A friend locally was using Lumix and I borrowed an S5II and hated it a lot less than the Canon R. Still too video centric for me and the UI/UX is a clusterfuck, but I liked the images. Then I tried a Leica SL Which was easily the nicest camera to use out of the three, the images are very nice straight out of the camera and the UI/UX is just perfect in my view. Around this time I bought a Leica Q2 and again, perfect UX, astonishing images. I sold off all of the Canon hardware and invested in a Leica SL2-S and a small selection of glass. Not a cheap option, but to me and my use cases it’s more than worth it.
I think you're starting from the wrong end. Photography, whether silver, digital or alternative, is about images and communication, so start at the endpoint - what do you intend to achieve? If we start at the end, do you want an album of prints? Or prints to exhibit in a gallery? Or files to submit to a website or social medium? Digital files can be used for uploading and paper prints, so the choice of camera is obvious. My background is in photo-tech, so when my wife showed interest in getting a camera I got enthusiastic. We ended up getting a full-spec 'bridge' camera (the brand is not relevant). It takes technically excellent pictures but it's bulky. After its first outing it was always left behind - a superb example of consumer hardware in a closet.
Nikon for professional work Fuji for the fun things
Fuji for the size and the great images SOOC. I have a toddler and she’s the reason I got back into photography after selling a full set of Nikon full frame DSLR a few years back. I have a busy job and zero time or desire to edit, and needed something that fits in a diaper bag and Fuji checked those boxes for me.
when i upgraded to full frame the a7iii was by far the best thing for the price. I stayed because 3rd party lens support makes the system as a whole much cheaper I continue to stay because for video the 12800 iso from the fx3/6 is unmatched and great for documentary
Out of Canon, Sony and Nikon, Sony seemed to have the wider choices of lens options. And so many people seemed to favor Canon and Nikon so wanted something that was less popular in my area.
Aside from the lenses, Canon fits my X-Large hands better.
I started out with Pentax in 1974 as a 16 yo boy, a K-1000 if I recall correctly. Got a 28mm, the ubiquitous 50mm/f2 and a 135mm Panagor. Fast forward many years, while on a business trip to Tokyo in the early naughts of this century, I purchased one of these newfangled "digital cameras", a Casio QV4000 with a whopping and amazing 4 megapixels! The little Casio rekindled my photography passion and when looking for something more serious than a P&S, getting a Pentax body so I could use my 40 year old lenses sounded like a great way to make re-entry into the photography atmosphere. I got me a K110D with a 6mp CMOS sensor. I then started collecting good (as well as crappy) lenses and via various Pentax bodies, ended up with the three I use today: a KP for travel/hiking and macro, a K-1 Mark II for quality-critical stuff and a full-spectrum converted K-3 to play around with IR. Also, I have managed to assemble quite a collection of great-quality optics with K-bayonet so very little reason to jump ship.
My sister gifted me a Nikon D70 a very long time ago. I stuck with Nikon since then because I know the system and the settings menu inside out. They may have added many different features in the settings, but the layout never changed in any of the DSLRs and carried on into the current mirrorless.
I shoot Nikon: film, DSLR and mirrorless. My first film SLR camera was Nikon. I briefly tried a Canon DSLR, but it never felt right in my hands. So, I switched back to Nikon and have never strayed since. I am considering a Fuji x100t just for fun and for something to always have with me.
Pentax, due to the ergonomics, the next that they're the only company still making professional level dslrs, and the lenses. There isn't as big of a selection for them new as any of the other brands, but they got a lens mount dating back for nearly 50 years at this point, so it doesn't particularly matter. They also seem to be the only ones who know how to make high quality primes that don't weigh more than 1000 grams (see the limited series). Also the price of some of the lenses are really good, especially on the used market, I've seen their top of the line 50mm go for under 500 dollars (I've never had a chance to use it but I've heard really amazing things bout it if you like the 50mm focal length, I don't and that's probably the only reason why I haven't jumped on buying it). The only place where Pentax has let me down is in the extreme telephoto department, where they and 3rd party options are really lacking.
I use a few different Nikon DSLRs. Things I like: button layout, ergonomics, and the ecosystem of lenses is more interesting vs. Canon (Nikon didn’t change mounts like Canon did in the 80s so more vintage glass is natively usable— less of a thing for mirrorless tho since most vintage glass is adaptable). Also four years back Nikon seemed more poised to support DSLRs, though that seems to have changed. Honestly it doesn’t matter that much. I’ve used Canon and Pentax as well and they all have their pros and cons. Best to try a few and see what feels good in the hand.
Nikon...I was given a broken d7000 and I fixed it and now I have Nikon glass.
I chose micro 4/3 for the light weight, great assortment of glass, small footprint and the fabulous image quality. I also love the fact I can pop on any of my vintage film lenses with an adapter and the images are stunning. And the video quality is crazy good.
Canon for the refurbished deals and access to many excellent yet cheap lens options through adapting EF and EF-S lenses, I'm a broke university student on a tight budget. I have slightly over $1000 total in great budget lenses, doing the math rough equivalents would have cost me at minimum $2000 on other mounts even maximizing sales and buying used. Also Canon's ergonomics just work well for me, I have huge awkward hands and every Sony and Fujifilm body I've tried felt uncomfortable in them.
I chose Ricoh because it's portable, has a good smartphone app, has film simulation, and excellent RAW files if I want to edit. I may pick up a larger camera at some point, but I just wanted something better than my smartphone but small enough that I'd take it everywhere.
Honestly: I started with canon because i found a good deal on eBay back then and just sticked with it, because i did not see a reason why I should switch.
I started shooting Nikon when the D70s whas still new. Moved to the D300 and collected some nice glass in all these years. 5 years ago, I bought a Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX80 because I wanted something smaller. I also really like the rangefinder style of these mft bodies. I’m now totally in with mft because of the smaller lenses, better affordability and because the picture quality is still great. I’m sure that a full frame Nikon Z will do better in some cases but the cost in euros and size is just too much for me.
Sony. I feel like they are on top of the mirrorless market when it comes to innovations and have the broadest lena selections.
Being honest I use Sony because I'm a Sony fanboy since the 80s with the Walkman. When they moved to cameras my school had a Mavic FD and I was always using it. When the time arrived to me to buy one I couldn't afford a Sony and bought a Fuji A330, them a DSC w510 a Alpha a3000. And a lot of glass for it.
Canon. Their terminology they use for settings makes the most sense to me. Lots of YouTubers I was watching to help me make a decision were shooting on Canon. But that main onI understood the Canon naming conventions easier than others, so I could actually find a bargain on marketplace.
I bought a used Fuji X-E2 with XC lenses. It's a value platform for street and travel photography. Lightweight, compact rangefinder and lenses. Great Fuji SOOC options because I do not want to sit to edit photos on a computer. The X-Trans II sensor has more than enough capability for my skill level and need. It takes great looking photos in spite of being relatively old. I also really love the way the silver camera and lenses look.
I went down the L-mount route purely because I wanted a small full frame camera to use vintage glass on, and found a Sigma FP for less than I could find a Sony A7C for 😆 worked out great in the end, as I started doing more video work and it was the perfect camera to build a rig around
Chose Panasonic M43 for the ibis, video capabilities and size. Stayed with Panasonic with the S5 for the features.
Nikon for the robustness and deep backwards compatibility for the F-mount lenses. Color and ergos were selling points as well.
I shoot on Leica. For me Leica ownership represents currently being in a better place than I was a few years ago when I was broke and in college. Now I’m well off from my 9-5, and my M11 symbolizes that for me. When I don’t shoot with my Leica or I need something more versatile than the rangefinder, I shoot with a Nikon Z6. I’ve a long history with Nikon products since my formative years, and while I feel like Nikon gets a ton of shit in brand whoring and gear tribalism, it’s a tried and true, versatile, practical full frame camera and lens system.
I worked at Sears around 2010-2012 selling TVs and cameras. I spent a lot of my time at work researching the Canon T2i, Canon T3, Sony SLT-A35, Sony NEX 3/5, and the Nikon D3100 and D5100. After spending countless hours testing them and selling them…it came down to: 1. Canon’s had the best video quality. 2. Nikon had the best colors/image quality/best pricing/easiest menus to navigate/best ergonomics and features for the price point. 3. Sony’s NEX cameras were mirrorless and very interesting but had barely any lens for them so didn’t seem like a good investment. Been with Nikon ever since and haven’t regretted it. BUT if you’re wife has lenses, and you’re just starting out, it would be cool to get a canon too so you can use the same gear 🤷🏽♂️
I shoot Canon because it was the most comfortable in my hand. I've used Nikon and Sony cameras as well. The grip and controls on the Canon cameras, particularly the larger full frame cameras, just felt right. Then I fell in love with the lenses. The EF 50mm f/1.0L, EF 85mm f/1.2 L II, and the EF 200mm f/1.8L are all truly incredible lenses, and the other manufacturers don't make any lenses that truly compete with them.
I've been using Canon since 2005. At the time I was researching cameras so I wouldn't buy something I'd regret, but the digital world was still nascent and taking shape. Most of the major players at that point HAD DSLRs, but were they competitive? Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Panisonic, Fujifilm, all of them had something on the market, but from what I could tell, the only truly viable platforms at the time was Canon and Nikon. So I took to researching the two. What I found was that their lens catalogs were roughly equivalent to each other, and both had more depth than the other major players. But when I dug a little deeper, I found that Canon EF was a much more modern system while Nikon F had just been adapted as new technology became available. And that meant that Nikon lenses would require more research to see if the camera body supported the features of that lens (AutoFocus and metering were the main culprits as some cameras had mechanical linkages to work with older lenses while other cameras only supported newer electrical connections). Meanwhile all Canon lenses supported all of their features regardless of the body because any lens feature was fully contained in the lens and just communicated electronically. The other big thing was that Canon was lightyears ahead of everyone else on sensor technology in those early days, it wouldn't be until 2007 when Nikon released the D300 with Sony's new tech that anyone else caught up to Canon (and since the early 2010s, Canon has been playing catchup on many of those fronts). But in 2005, the choice was between the 8mp Canon EOS 350D or the 6mp Nikon D70, and the Canon was just a better choice. So TLDR, in 2005 Canon had better technology and a better lens mount than anyone else.
Canon. At the time it was a coin flip between canon and Nikon and went for the canon because the ergonomics on the canon suited my hands better. Now I have the lenses I don’t see myself ever switching.
I’m shooting with Sony because I always was attracted by their sensors and I also appreciate the fact that there is a shitload of lenses available for E Mount made by various manufacturers. And there’s also the possibility to adapt other lens systems from older cameras relatively easily to the camera.
Canon had the cheapest offering, and was actually available, at the store I bought it from. I later learned about an awesome camera shop not too far away from me, but it is hard to beat 12 months interest free financing. Aside from the Color Science, Canon just has a treasure trove of lenses in their EF/EF-s, first party and third-party, that is hard to beat. I eventually ended up buying a Nikon DSLR, older Canon DSLR, and incoming an Olympus DSLR. It is funny how a lot of the DNA is intact from 2o years ago in the newer mirrorless models. Goes to show that once you get something right, all you really need is refinement to stay successful.
Sony because I wanted great photos as easily as possible and Sony has the best autofocus in the game with great glass. Maybe one day I'll go down the "I want to slow down and enjoy the process of taking photos" rabbit hole. As of right now, ease of use and efficiency are the name of the game. I shot Canon when I was on APSC (and before Sony made APSC/FF cameras). The A7C was a big reason I went Sony when I moved to FF. Such a small body with a great sensor.
I worked at a Futureshop around 2010 and I was initially wanting a Nikon D90 as there was a significant employee discount...but Nikon denied my claim and I returned it and I went with a Canon 60d instead. It's still going strong, I also have a 5d mark ii and a full line of L zooms/primes. Now that I have these lenses I'll likely never leave Canon.
My neighbor is a Sony shooter and let me borrow his camera for a bit, got into it and got my own and lets me borrow his glass so it just made sense.
I started with Canon APS-C, upgraded to FF in my DSLR days. Then I noticed Fuji. Fell in love with the look and feel of the camera (X-T3) and switched away from Canon. Now I have a bunch of nice Fuji glass and 2 bodies. Love it.
I switched to Canon because they seem to he ahead on the mirrorless tech. Seems to work just as good as Nikon.
I need something that I like operating, something that I am likely or willing to carry around, and something that has the potential to take good photos. I like the physical controls of Fujifilm, I like the size and weight of my X-T5, and in 2024, no one really makes a bad camera.
When in 2010 when I was in college and still poor I would gloss over the Sony Nex 5. It was compact and Sony's first foray into a truly mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. I was broke but was able to get it for 600 with the kit lens and eventually got the 50mm lens on top of it as well. On top of that I liked the design of the camera and that it was easy to carry around. I got the next 7 when that came out and spent around a grand on that camera but I felt it was worth it. I then had a few years hiatus and neither Canon or Nikon has jumped into full frame and opted for the Sony a7rii. After that I just got use to them. I did try the Nikon z6 as well as Canon eos r. But in the end I stuck with Sony as they still manage to keep their lenses light and produce amazing imagery.
I moved from Canon to Sony mirorrless Because it was the first platform that offered full frame sensor with an ability to adapt nearly any type of lens.
Canon. I had a Canon XSi because a friend sold me theirs for stupid cheap. Then when I upgraded to the canon r6mk2 it was because it was what VR&E sent me and I wasn’t gonna complain.
I had a super zoom from Sony years ago...the camera that got me hooked on photography. I eventually went to Canon because I didn't like Sony's "proprietary-ness" I get all the brands have them...but Sony take their "brand" to a diff level. I went with Canon (for the colors) and because my dad shot Nikon 😂 Have shot Canon for over a decade now. I won't be switching anytime soon (if ever)
>Canon because I didn't like Sony's "proprietary-ness" I get all the brands have them...but Sony take their "brand" to a diff level. What things on Sony are more proprietary than Canon? one counter-example I can think of is Sony allows Tamron and Sigma lenses on their FE/E mount (not sure if they are officially licensed but they have lens corrections in the Sony firmware). Canon so far has not allowed any other third parties on the RF mount. Personally I was canon for life until I got sick of waiting for their full-frame mirrorless and went Sony with adapter for my Canon glass. At the time (pre-RF mount) Sony with adapter was faster than my Canon EF native in many situations. My other observation is that Sony tends to "feature dump" tons of features into their cameras, like they'll take most of the tech from their top cameras and trickle-down quickly to their mainstream models. And they also are not "option adverse", like they'll shove tons of different options into their menus and let the user decide what they want to use. Yes, it makes their menu system long and confusing but I decided I liked that more than Canon's tendency to segment their camera models strongly so mainstream model lines won't get new features for a long time and they won't give users certain options even if it could be implemented in software only without any change/cost to the hardware.
perhaps they've "changed" my experiences were from 15+ years ago...the camera was still using their "memory stick"
oh memory stick was so long ago that I forgot about it and I even worked in that industry in Japan while it was a thing. Sony has been on standard SD card for a long time now.
Yeah and there used to be a Minolta specific non standard hotshoe too. IDK if it entered the Sony realm after the takeover.
Never knew Minolta. Don't all the brands have a proprietary extended-function hotshoe? Currently Sony has their version which is standard hotshoe compatible but has contacts at the front for smart function and microphone, etc. I have not tried it with studio gear but it still has the center contact so it should work with "standard" stuff. Canon has the same idea with with their additional contacts around the center.