It depends upon what experience you have shooting professionally and what system you already have.
It is not the camera you need to be concerned about, but the lenses. Lenses will last for decades while digital SLR bodies will have to be replaced about every three to four years.
If you have the extra $8,000 for the Canon and $5,000 for the Nikon, buy both and see which suits your needs as a pro.
My guess is, you will find that both provide suitable image quality for any publication ... after all some of us are still using professional DSLR camera's with as little as 6MP with success.
Don't get caught up in the pixel stampede. There is a limit to pixel density on any given sensor. After a certain point, diffraction becomes a factor and the image becomes degraded. While we have known this for many decades by the effects of using too small an f/stop, it is just now showing up in the compact digital camera arena when 12MP or more pixels are being crammed into tiny sensors.
Only you can make the choice. Since we have to change digital camera bodies every three or four years, I am happy I only have to buy three D-3's @ $5,000 each instead of some of my friends who just put down $24,000 for three Canon 1Ds Mark III's
And sad to say, our client's are only using 2x3 inch images in their newspapers and magazines and worse 100K images on their websites ... why do we shoot 10MB or more images for them? Because it is expected ... the cost of doing business
__________________
Powered by Yahoo! | 
02-09-2008, 01:00 PM
Linear Mode
