Peeter Vissak <pv@xxxxxx> writes: > Others than the already existing huge lens' pool - what are the major > differences in the real push-the-button-world? > Or - are there any at all? It's all highly variable. The Nikon D200 offers a feature package that Canon has nothing to compete with near that price point. The Canon 5D offers a feature that Nikon has nothing to compete with. You have to decide which is more important to you; and then realize that things *will* change in the future, as new models are released. Nikon seems to have a better flash system, and that seems to have been consistent for quite a while. But even that isn't sculpted in stone. I haven't compared the high-ISO performance of the pro-model Nikons and the pro-model Canons, but I hear from many sources that Canon has been consistently better there. But that's at the 1D level and up. And the simple objective measures may not accurately represent your preferences on appearance, and the question of how much noise-reduction should be in-camera and how much in post-processing is very much an open issue. You won't go really badly wrong choosing either way, so far as anybody can tell about the future. Which isn't very far. One annoying fact is that lots of people seem to think Nikon's extreme wideangle lenses are much better than Canon's. But it's Canon that has the full-frame sensor. Oops; everybody loses. You can get pretty darned wide with the Canon or Sigma 10mm-xx zoom on a crop-factor body, but nobody thinks those zooms are as good as the Nikon 14mm. They're a lot cheaper, though. If you're buying the extreme equipment at one end or the other of focal length, that might drive your choice of system. If you're buying a general-purpose assortment you're in good shape either way. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
