Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Is the Grass Greener or more Saturated?

Everyone knows the saying "The Grass is always greener on the other side."  We always look outside our current situation and see on that from the outside appears to be better than the one we claim as our own.  Over the past few weeks photographers and gear junkies (can be the same person, but not always) have been drooling over Nikon's dynamic duo the D3 and D300.  Most are focusing on the D300 because let's face it - the D3 is so way out there on price that if one is blessed to be able to afford one, that individual is probably heavily invested in glass on one side of the argument or the other so the D3 is not worth the time as a distraction.  However, for working photographers like myself who still hold a day job and work professionally on the side - the D300 is so hard to ignore.

To truly understand my predicament one must get the back story.  In the late 90's when I was in High School, I worked as an assistant in a local photography studio Bryn-Alan Photography.  As a youth I was surrounded by photographers using Nikon equipment.  It simply made sense to purchase a nikon camera when I had saved for a bit.  My first camera of my own was a Nikon N90s with a Sigma 28-200 mm lens.  It was a great combo for a young photographer - The camera was a workhorse.  After High School I left the studio to go to college and while in college I didn't really take that many photos because let's face it ... it is tough to go from free film and processing to paying for it, 'nuf said.  I ended up selling the camera for my now wife's engagement ring.  Ok, you can take your moment to say "awe" and the wake up to the reality that I wasn't using the camera because I couldn't afford to use the camera and Film was quickly loosing its market value.  Two years ago I borrowed some Canon gear from a family member to photograph a friend's wedding and was hooked again.  After that, I began the research.  Long story ... less long, I did tons of image tests myself and decided that the Canon 20D or 30D would give me better low light/high ISO images than the Nikon D200.  I loved (and still do) the feel of the D200 - much better feeling camera.  However, I went with the images because that is what really matters.  Now enter the D300 - they have addressed several D200 issues; however, the one I care about is noise.  So, now I look at my 20D and the L glass I have purchased for it plus all the camera accessories and MAN the grass looks greener.  However, when I think of all the money I would lose switching over at this junction in the road ... I just really want to break down into the fetal position on the floor.

I guess the real issue is that a once Nikon shooter switched over to Canon and now wishes he had stood his ground and hung on to the Nikon platform.  However, now that I know I am a Canon shooter - I can turn that frustration into fanboyism for Canon, hiding my pain in insult and nitpicking .... yeah that will NEVER happen.  I am a Canon shooter who was once a Nikon shooter.  I would encourage anyone reading this (if there is anyone reading this) to realize that Nikon and Canon are competitors - Nikon releases in response to Canon and Canon returns the favor as well.  Nikon is currently king of the image-to-noise ratio hill; however, I am sure canon will respond with something in like kind with it's rumored 5D replacement ... or perhaps they won't.  Any way you slice it ... the battle goes on. 

No comments: