Curb Zone - View Single Post - Antartica Trip. Canon's failed Nikon didn't

Osnabrueck · 03-08-2007, 09:29 AM

Funny - sounds like one of those ancedotal craftsmanship storys straight out of Automotive world tailor-made for the world of fanatical brand worshipers who like to believe utter nonsense about what differentiates their favorite camera/car/shoe/computer/stereo from the rest.

"I took my VW through the Sahara and it worked like a charm! The Mercedes broke down and got eaten by a sand worm. Just goes to show!"

It doesn't take a half-eaten retard to know that Cannon makes great cameras - as evidenced by legions of professionals who use their gear. You could take any professional SLR into "environment x" along with some other random camera and get all sorts of wacky results. Sometimes a pile of dung contains a fleck of gold.

Which isn't to say that Nikon is better or worse than Cannon. They, like most of the field, are on parity. Digicams are so good, when you're talking about what $1,500 will get you, trying to declare superiority is a matter of obsessively splitting hairs.

One more thing - from the horse's mouth:
"As for why the majority of the camera failures seen on this trip were Canon, the answer is because 85% of the trip's members were shooting Canon. Simple statistics."

03-08-2007, 09:29 AM	#7 (permalink)
Osnabrueck Fanatic Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,858 Thanks: 233 Thanked 203 Times in 128 Posts	Re: Antartica Trip. Canon's failed Nikon didn't Funny - sounds like one of those ancedotal craftsmanship storys straight out of Automotive world tailor-made for the world of fanatical brand worshipers who like to believe utter nonsense about what differentiates their favorite camera/car/shoe/computer/stereo from the rest. "I took my VW through the Sahara and it worked like a charm! The Mercedes broke down and got eaten by a sand worm. Just goes to show!" It doesn't take a half-eaten retard to know that Cannon makes great cameras - as evidenced by legions of professionals who use their gear. You could take any professional SLR into "environment x" along with some other random camera and get all sorts of wacky results. Sometimes a pile of dung contains a fleck of gold. Which isn't to say that Nikon is better or worse than Cannon. They, like most of the field, are on parity. Digicams are so good, when you're talking about what $1,500 will get you, trying to declare superiority is a matter of obsessively splitting hairs. One more thing - from the horse's mouth: "As for why the majority of the camera failures seen on this trip were Canon, the answer is because 85% of the trip's members were shooting Canon. Simple statistics."