There are a lot more than you think. It's just that most event photographers don't advertise themselves as a Nikon user or a canon user. Their images speak for them not the equipment.

Most of the guys I know locally shoot weddings with D700s and D3s. One guy shots weddings with an H3D and the ones I know who shoot with 1DmkIII's and 5DmkII's do so because they're stupid ;^)

Does anyone know any really good wedding photographers that shoot Nikons? It seems like they all shoot Canons..

When a family member wanted to upgrade to their first DSLR they asked me for advice. At the time the D40 was the best entry level camera and I showed them all the neat features it had. I explained to them why I preferred it over canon or other brands, etc. They loved the D40's size, build and especially the layout of the menu system.

They seemed convinced on buying one. A few days later I asked them how their purchase went and they told me it went well. They ended up buying a canon 350D!!! When I asked why they said they WERE going to buy the D40 but when they saw the canon 350D on clearance, they just bought it instead for the lower price and higher megapixels :^(

Like on my other post: Canon buyers have blinds on and can only see Canon

However Canon does and have had the best overall P & S line of cameras, Nikon have simply newer managed to make the same quality. Nikon should have learned from Panasonic who has managed to improve their P & S cameras to the same quality level as Canon. Lots of Canon fans have started with a P & S and liked them and then moved up to Canon SLR's

Pete

Apparently we have all picked a very unpopular brand :^(

http://blogs.zdnet.com/digitalcameras/?p=1813

The comments are interesting to read for reasons why people chose canon.

Actually, I had a rather hilarious discussion with my boss today about this. It started with him telling me that a 16-35 broke about a month out of warranty, and I remarked "well nikon has a 5 year on all the lenses." (the company that I work for uses Canon)

Honestly, Canon has a larger selection, but in my experience, Nikkors can take quite a beating.

She knows I think she's beautiful.

Careful - your wife may read your posts !!!

I was at a Gala last night and chided a friend who was shooting the event with a Canon, since I'm Nikon user. In an ensuing conversation he mentioned that he preferred shooting Canon at these events because the pictures were quite a bit less sharp than Nikon. More flattering for our aging crowd.

Another winning niche for Canon. Older, less attractive people. (Actually it was a pretty attractive group with many cute interns - my lovely wife was there too!)

I agree with Ted2001 re Nikon in the SF area. I just got back, and Nikon vastly outnumbered Canon.
As an aside - I was at a restaurant there, and a guy from Slovokia saw my D300, and asked if I was a professional photographer. He said that he recently bought a Canon after researching both brands, but has since noticed that most of the professional photographers around the bay area shoot Nikon. Interesting.

I still think that lots of entry Canon Rebel SLR buyers are buying with blinds on. They can only see Canon, and they believe the other cameras can simply not take quality pictures

Yes High End Nikon glass can be expensive and they lack F 4.0 lenses, but at the entry area I would argue that Nikon offer better value. Why would Canon sell kits with a crappy 28 - 135 lens, because they only had a cheap and still cheap looking 18 - 55 lens, the other 17 - 85 was app the same cost as the Nikon 16 - 85 and nowhere near as good. Canon now has new 15 - 85 and 18 - 135 and they are both more expensive compared to similar lenses from Nikon and yet to be seen quality

Pete

Canon surely has the upper hand when it comes to market share(dont know the breakdown when it comes to d-SLR sales alone).So there should be more Canon shooters rather than Nikoners.

That said, Nikon definitely has better glass(which are also relatively more costly!). A personal observation is that entry level and amateur level bodies are the highest moving segment in D-SLR's and those cameras are more represented by Canon.

Pro photographers have found excellent cameras in the D3 and the D300.

For me it's a tossup- sometimes I see more Canon cameras, sometimes I see more Nikons. I tried to persuade my cousin not to get a Rebel XSi, but to no avail. But then I got the 35mm 1.8 and he got mighty jealous. :D

Of course, there's no Canon mount version of the 35mm 1.8. I think he got the Sigma 20mm 1.8 for the Canon mount, and even that one isn't as sharp as the 35mm 1.8 when we were comparing photos.

I'm mighty happy with my lens purchase, since the 35mm 1.8 is almost 1/2 the price of the 20mm 1.8!

Some Canon FD lense can be modified to use on Nikon body, but not directly with any adapters.

Here a work done by Bjorn Rorslett on Canon 35mm f/2.8 tilt/shift mounted on Nikon D2X:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3950754

Last winter I spent 3 weeks in south Florida photographing wildlife mainly birds at all the good places that I know of to shoot. I noticed that the number of Nikon shooters out numbered Canon by about two to one or even a little more. Just about all of the real serious photographers were shooting Nikon. You wouldn't believe all the Nikon 600mm, 500mm, and 200-400mm VR lenses I saw. It could be the type of photography or location that makes a difference, I don't know. Just keep in mind the person behind the camera is the most inportant thing.

Panamon_Creel: good point :)

Besides lens mount OD there is the big problem of lens mount flange to focal plane distance difference between Canon and Nikon. Canon lenses would need to be recessed back on the Nikon mount by 1.42mm ( I think ) which is technically not directly possible whereas Nikon lenses on Canon bodies need to be spaced by the 1.42mm from the flange which can easily be done.

"I think the cannon mount is larger around than the Nikon mount... so it messes things up."

It is. Those adapters fill in the extra millimeters for the Nikon lenses to mount. An adapter for Canon to mount to Nikon would have to be really oddly shapes as it would have to go from smaller to larger on the front of the camera.

Yes Canon has more lenses than Nikon and special F4.0 lenses. However when you can compare a similar lens I would say from my own experience that most Nikon lenses are better.

Like:

18-55 VR
16-85 VR (vs their 17-85)
70-200 2.8
24-70 2.8
and the 14-24 2.8 which lots of Pro Canon users have bought adapters for

There are maybe others

Being in Camera sales I find that lots of Canon buyers have blinds on and can only see Canon, they have some know-it-all friend that is shooting Canon and they have to have the same. Most of Nikon SLR buyers will look and compare features and the feel of different brands. Lots will say, wow that Canon SLR sure looks cheap compared to the similar priced Nikon (and not to mention what they have to say about the new entry Sony SLR's)

Yes Nikon might not have the best overall specs at the moment, but most of their stuff does work very well

Pete

What is it with Thom Hogan, is he going to change his site to all about Olympus or something

I think the cannon mount is larger around than the Nikon mount... so it messes things up.

>>I don't see anyone making a Canon lens adapter to shoot on Nikon cameras...<<

That's because of technical issues and not because of lack of interest.

I don't see anyone making a Canon lens adapter to shoot on Nikon cameras, but I know there are a lot of Canon shooters using Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 and Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 on their Canon cameras.

Non photographers even associate the Nikon name with quality cameras. They always say to me "I've heard that they're the best". The average person seems to associate Canon more often with printers or P&S cameras.

Also I find that Nikon gives better product service, both in longer warranty and doing warranty repairs where Canon would say, sorry damaged by user, warranty void.

Also Canon dumped people with APS-C lenses from using them on FF cameras

Pete

Nikon has a proud pro heritage, stretching back as we all know to the Nikon F. What was clever about the F was that Nikon introduced a model in 1959 that could grow with time, as technology advanced, so metering heads, and then TTL metering heads, all fitted the original body. Clever, that. Thus the F Photomic FTn that I bought new in 1970 was state-of-the-art then - 11 years later. Just think of that now - the 1999 Nikon D1 is a dinosaur, and I have one sitting next to me! Canon in 1970 was making worthy amateur cameras - the FTQL. In 1971 they came up with a new model to rival the Nikon F - called F1, which had a huge range of everything, but bombed because the market was comfy with Nikon. New lensmount, of course. In the autofocus era, Canon dug deep again to give the world EOS - new lensmount, again. Thus Canon has dumped on its existing customers at least twice, while Nikon maintain the same lensmount as on the original F, and still produce market-leading bodies in 2009. Be proud of your black & yellow - it means customer commitment!