What made you choose your camera brand or model?

I often get asked this question and the answer is mostly ergonomic in my case. I shot Minolta and Canon when l was shooting film back in the late '70s and '80s through the early 2000s. I started with Minolta with an old Minolta SRT 201 when I was in college then, when I was able to afford new equipment, I switched to Canon and stayed with them for many years.

Enter digital photography and, when I was finally ready to go the DSLR route I looked at all of the major brands. I settled on Nikon...not for any brand loyalty or preference but because the Nikon bodies felt better in my hand (I had a work accident and lost the tips of a couple of fingers on my right hand so holding a camera became difficult) due to their deeper grips. I also found their viewfinders to be a bit brighter and gave more coverage than the Canons I was also looking at.

My first Nikon DSLR was the D40 which, in my opinion, is the best camera, dollar for dollar, I have ever owned. I currenlty shoot with a D300 and a D5100 and am very pleased with Nikon.

I am always curious when I talk to other photographers as to what made them choose their gear.

Cheers,

Brian J.

I started to use the Canon Powershot series because they where always supplied the same software regardless of model. Later I changed to the SX series for the same reason.

The other big thing was the availability of an eye piece to take pictures. My eyes don't work well with LCD screens for taking pictures and video.

In 2006 I chose a Minolta DSLR, though in retrospect I might admit that the camera store salesperson probably picked it for me. I hated the auto-focus, and felt that exposures were very unpredictable, especially with flash, though I now suspect the flash exposure problems were operator error.

In 2007, my suitcase got stolen, and with it went my Minolta gear. At the time, the Canon 1D Mark III was supposed to be THE bleeding edge autofocus system, so I switched to Canon with the insurance check. AF was good but not without issues, and that took a trip to Canon to get (mostly) fixed. In 2010, we tried the Canon 7D and loved it so much we bought two (one to be my wife's primary camera, and one to be my secondary camera).

In 2013, I had the money to get a used Canon 1Dx, as we were starting our transition to full-frame. I got hooked quickly, and soon had two of them. We eventually sold the 7D bodies, but I just can't part with the 1D3 from (now) 10 years ago.

In 2015, I needed a tax write-off, and the Canon 5DsR was calling my name. I picked one up and it has changed how I shoot (very much for the better). The clarity is unbelievable, and the ability to crop goes on "forever". I would buy a second one right now if I could, but logic says that my wiser choice is to get a 5D Mark IV to update my wife's 5D3 (and serve as a better 5DsR backup than a 5D3 or 1Dx), then hope to get a second 5DsR.

Don't even get me started on lens choices... ;)

Well, it's a long story...

No. Really. It's long!

My first camera was my Dad's Brownie Hawkeye that I dug out of the back of the hall closet when I was about 10. It used 620 roll film and since it was the "advanced" model, it had a flash attachment that used the old popper flashbulbs. It opened my eyes to photography and they haven't closed since.

Next was my Dad's Leica IIIc with actual interchangeable lenses!

At 15, I used some of my own money to augment birthday cash and bought a Minolta SRT-102. I chose Minolta because at that point in time, the SRT-102 had more features for the dollar and I just liked the feel. The 50mm f/1.4 that came with it was very sharp and the Vivitar 75-260 zoom I added a couple of years later carried me through the next chapter.

In 1986 my wonderful wife proved that she listened to my camera tech-related babbling and presented me with a Maxxum 7000. She had no idea that it took different lenses and I used the sale of my MC mount camera and lenses along with some overtime money to augment it with short and long zooms to supplement the 50mm f/1.7 lens that came with it. In 1989 I upgraded to a 7000i and in 1992 added a 7xi as my primary camera. Around the same time, I also picked up a Minolta 20mm f/2.8 and 100 mm f/2.8 macro (which I still use today). Still loving the Minoltas, they kept me going until 2000 when photography changed for the worse.

in late 2000, we did a 25th anniversary cruise from Florida to California through the Panama Canal. We hit Aruba, transited the Canal, saw monkeys in the jungles of Costa Rica, cliff-divers in Acapulco and shot 20 rolls of film (a budget item in those days) to document the big trip. Sometime along the way, my 7xi's shutter stopped opening. All the noises and film transport were normal, but we got home to find that 14 out of 20 rolls were unexposed. It was a loss of faith moment for me. I didn't take a picture or even pick up a camera for six months.

In July 2001, I decided to get back in the saddle and since my time with computers involved some graphic design and I was familiar with early photo editors, I picked up a Kodak DC-4800 digital camera. It shot 3MP images and frankly, the shots I got from it were pretty darn good. (Plus, I could see if the damn shutter worked!) I was sold on digital. Big time.

Based on features vs. cost, I went back to Minolta and picked up a Dimage 7i digicam the next year and when the 8MP Dimage A2 came out in 2004 with in-body stabilization, I thought I found the holy grail. It was a very advanced camera for it's time and reaffirmed my respect for Minolta's innovation.

In 2005, Minolta (now Konica-Minolta) released the Maxxum 7d DSLR and I had a decision to make. I was doing a bit of product photography and catalog design at the time and had decided to go back to an interchangeable lens camera to expand my options. (HERE IS THE DECISION POINT!) I tried all the available models in my price range and the 7d won on several points, not the least of which was that with in-body stabilization, my small collection of legacy A-mount Maxxum lenses would be stabilized. Every one of them.

Minolta died months later.

Sony rose from the ashes and I had another decision to make. I didn't have a ton of expensive glass and the A100 was good, but didn't sparkle like the 7d had. About the time I was leaning towards brand-switching, Sony dropped the A700 and it was the shiny hook that led me to stay with the A-mount and Sony. I took a lot of heat from my photo friends about buying a camera from a TV maker but I stuck with it when Sony killed the flappy DSLR mirror and released the A77. Sony's continuation of Minolta's willingness to innovate kept me with them and when the NEX-5 appeared with it's tiny body and APS-C sensor, It became my second camera for travel, replacing the A700. Yeah, it had a different lens mount (shades of 1985) and while you could adapt a-mount, it was a good second camera with the kit zoom.

When the NEX-7 came out with the same 24MP sensor as the A77, the A700 and the NEX-5 went up for sale and the transition from DSLR started. The NEX-7 not-so-slowly became my go-to camera and the A77 was relegated to special chores like family weddings, Alaska and Grandkid's sports.

I decided to pass on the A6000 with all of its fast focus prowess and other bells and whistles until my NEX-7 died on me. That was it for the DSLR. My travel kit was now the A6000, a NEX-3n that I picked up on a sale and a small collection of lenses...all in a bag that fit under an airline seat. When the A6300 came out with it's blazing fast AF, the A77 went on the shelf and hasn't come off since.

I now shoot with the Sony Alphas and am sold on the smaller mirrorless cameras. I may look at full frame in the future but for now, I'm at a good place for me and enjoying photography more than any time in my life...except maybe for that moment when the first roll of roll film came back from the drug store. :)

Told you it was a long story!

Dave

My story, like Dave's, is long-winded - which is an occupational hazzard - and probably partly old-age. (Listen up, Whippersnapper!)

I began with Brownies and Dad's old fold-up Kodak, worked part-time in college at Sear's camera department. I had a Pratika but borrowed my friend's Canon rangefinder and eventually "graduated" to Nikon F series and eventually became a glass collector from a Nikkor fisheye to a 500mm mirror. My go-to lens was the 180mm 2.8 Nikkor.

(My wife had a F2 but stuck to her 43mm-70mm (?) Nikkor.

I got up to the Nikon 7 and age and physical problems made the camera just too heavy for me.

Fell in love with the various Panasonics - light weight, great optics, zoom-lens, Leica branded lens - forgot the series number but I progressed through the series and still have a FZ200 - which my son uses - and the FZ-40 which my wife uses though she seems to use her iPhone most of the time.

Then I discovered the Sony - thanks to Obi-Wan Dave - and now have the A6300 and have have the 12mm, the regular kit len, 35mm, 50mm, 28-70mm (big mistake), the 28-105mm (great go-to lens) and the 70-300mm lens (bit too heavy for me but great lens to have!).

To those contemplating a change, read Dave Pierce's articles on the Sony.

In my glass collection, I eventually sold my Sigma 19mm and 30mm(?) which were great lenses. The 28-70mm is a good lens but the 28-105mm has a better reach and more versatile.

OP raised a very good point. When people ask me what to buy the first thing I ask them is the budget?, then the intended us? Next we talk about size and weight. Once we have some understanding of those three I will make some suggestions, the last on being go to your local camera or even Best Buy our Costco and play the various cameras and see what fits in your hand, what you are comfortable with, how do your fingers fit the camera, etc. Ergonomics. There are so many options out there now that all make real quality images it hard to just pick one.

Dave provided the long version of his history with cameras..the beginning sounds a lot like my own but it was a Brownie Holiday that I got for my birthday. Then on to dad's Zeiss Icon then on to a Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic when I was killing time in college and recovering from an auto accident. A year with the Spotmatic and a couple of PJ courses that I talked my way into and I moved on to Nikons, the Fs. Age brought slowing reflexes and slowing eyes and technology brought the Canon EOS 1....Been with Canon since.....

Brian J, thanks for the topic, Dave, thanks for the history.

My first digital camera was a Sony P1 and I stuck with sony through a variety of point and shoots, an R1 and then onto DSLRs. My last Sony was an a57, which I shot over 30000 images before it started having issues. Then I had a dilemma: the a 58 was dumbed down a57 and then Sony dropped that line. The other a-mounts were too big for my hands. I loved Sony colors and the features available.

Then I had a BIG decision to make: I had a great collection of a-mount lenses, but no camera. I could switch to sony's e-mount, and use the lenses with adaptors, but then I lost some of the attractiveness of small size. And, truth be told, I was pretty annoyed at Sony and lost trust in their line.

I sold all the Sony stuff, and switched to micro 4/3. I bought an Olympus EM10 mark ii, with equivalent lens coverage, a flash, remote, etc. and got money back too! I love the small size of the EM10, and how light weight my kit is. I've since added a Panasonic GM5, by trading in my RX100 and RX10. (The GM5 is as small as the RX100.) The only thing I miss about Sony is the way the panorama shots worked and the auto-focus which seemed to take less thought and attention.

I just blame Dave, it's his fault I now have and love my Sony mirrorless gear...;) (CC needs the "wavy guy" smilie...)

Dad had bought me a Vivitar kit in 1979 for 8th grade graduation to replace the Instamatic. Used that until the Minolta Maxxum 7000i came along (Remember program cards?!?) EDIT-just realized I still have it lol!

I honestly do not remember why Canon won over Nikon in my eventual upgrade. All I can theorize is (in my mind anyways) at the time, Canon was a slight underdog to Nikon on the beginner DSLR playing field - and I always rooted for the underdogs...

They served me well until it was time to unload the weight and get back to enjoying photography, not collecting and filling bags with equipment. That's when ergo's really became (almost) as important as cost and resulting quality.

Thinking about my past does make me a bit sentimental - I look at Kodachrome slides of Formula 1 cars zipping around Phoenix taken with the Vivitar and know they are every bit as sharp as something I took last week. But I think the sentimentality makes me think there is a bit more soul in those old shots...

Another long story for me. I started with a Kodak Instamatic 110 camera in the mid-70s when I was just 6 years old, shooting B&W film mostly. My dad felt like I would enjoy moving up to something more advanced, so for my 9th birthday he bought me a Pentax ME Super with two lenses, which was my introduction to the world of SLRs. I kept that camera through high school and college, then added a Canon EOS IX APS camera, just before digital cameras started to pop up commonly.

In 1997, I saw the big, strange beast on the shelf, shooting digital on high-tech FLOPPY DISKS! 1 whole MP! It was the Sony FD91 Mavica, and what pulled me in was the 14x optical, stabilized zoom. With those floppy disks I could shoot all I wanted...what a concept. I was still shooting my film cameras alongside, when I needed better prints. I finally had the opportunity to upgrade the digital to a camera with very good optical lens quality and a decent 5MP which was actually suitable for decent sized prints, so when that camera, the Sony F717 came out, I upgraded to that. The Sony digital cameras were reliable for me, gave good results, so I had no reason to switch. I stopped using the film cameras once the F717 came about - except for the very rare nostalgic shoot for fun. I moved to a superzoom Sony H1, then H5 - because I was getting into wildlife and wanted the reach optically.

Then came the move to DSLR, as I really wanted better low light, and better continuous focus tracking than P&S cameras could deliver...the biggest selling point for me on the Sony DSLRs at the time is they were one of the very few that could shoot with either the optical viewfinder or the LCD using live view with no delay in performance...I had really come to enjoy having that live view ability, and together with a tilting LCD screen I could shoot odd-angle shots when needed. Plus, the Sony DSLR bodies had the right grip size, chunky and good for wrapping my fingers around, which made them fit nicely ergonomically. I upgraded that A300 to the A550 which added much better performance and sensor, then the A580, which perfected the fast focus and continuous focus abiity in a camera with both optical viewfinder and LCD live view shooting with no lag.

During the A550's tenure, I decided to pick up a mirrorless body as a second camera system - it was cheap and small - the Sony NEX3 - but I never really fell in love with it as I couldn't go back to shooting with no viewfinder...so it only got occasional use. I liked having a small camera with a big APS-C sensor for low light quality though, so when the NEX-5N came out with an optional EVF finder, I upgraded to that. I was officially a two-camera person now, as the 5N was the first mirrorless I actually enjoyed shooting with. But it was still not useful for continuous focus or tracking needs. I strongly preferred the body design though - small thin camera but with a nice, pronounced grip to wrap fingers around...as opposed to the 'bar of soap' designs. When the A6000 debuted with a built-in EVF and that fancy tracking focus ability, I knew it was the camera for me. And this was the turning point, when my DSLR system became the backup system to the mirrorless, which really started to take over primary shooting duties.

I now have the Sony A6300, the update to the A6000 bringing some much-requested updates I had been hoping for, but in the same basic design body - just better at everything, plus nice tweaks to the customization, menus, and overall controls...and the A68 as my 'DSLR' backup body which mostly just gets used with one lens, the Tamron 150-600mm when I need a lot of reach. I'm starting to see the end of the line though as the E-mount bodies have caught up and in some ways passed a lot of the DSLRs for my needs in focus speed, tracking, and reliability, plus the lens collection has filled in nicely with 54 autofocus lenses and 104 total lenses available for e-mount, including the long-awaited arrival of a 400mm native zoom, which with a 1.4x TC will just about match what I can get with my big Tamron. It seems the writing may be on the wall for me as a two-system shooter as the E-mount may just be able to handle all my needs in the future.

Similar story, started with a Zeis-Icon, graduated to a Minolta SRT-101 (was going to be a Ricoh, but the dealer tried to rip me off, so I bought golf clubs). Stayed with Minoltas until a 4mp point and shoot, then a string of Fujifilm "bridge cameras" (I was in love with the mega optical zoom. A few years ago I went with Nikon because of the way it felt, the deal I got on a D5500 reconditioned, and am now unbelievably nuts about the D500 (5500 is my backup/ second lens holder).

I just got the 10-20 DX Nikor lens, and after I process my pictures will offer an opinion. First blush is that for the price ($300), and the limited times I will use/need it, I like it. I have a 18-55, (27-87 on a DX), so the additional field of view is pretty amazing.

Ken

Not going to go into my long history with cameras but instead, how I came into my latest.

Wanted a small travel sized superzoom P&S that had a decent EVF and shoots in RAW. Christmas comes around and my wife surprises me with the Panasonic SZ-50.

Great planning/thinking Herfnerd. Define what features you want, define your budget and go out and see what fits those two and your hands.

A friend who's a landscape photographer clued me in. He says that all of the major brands make great bodies, but the big investment is in lenses. You can still use a 40 year old lens on a modern body (if the mount is the same), and that glass holds its' value a lot more so than the body. I bought Canon because that's what we used at work and I was the de-facto evidence photographer on search warrants for 21 years, plus my friend also used them.

After buying my first pro lens last month (70-200mm EF S II) I see what he means. It cost as much as my first two DSLR bodies and the 80D it's used on, combined. On a sunny day for medium length shots, a late model cellphone would take just as good a picture. But in the production shows with low light and continual movement, you need a bigger sensor and a fast lens.

I bought a D40 based on someone I trusted's recommendations, then a D70 when I burned out the D40, then a D7000 (which is still a backup body) and I think there was a D90 in there somewhere. Having a number of crop sensor lenses I was actually fine until the D500 came out with its insane rate of shooting (I do a lot of wildlife photography). So the decision to stay Nikon was driven mostly by glass.

I picked up a few other cameras based on particular need - an a6000 for when I wanted something more portable, an Olympus tough for wet conditions, etc.

For the DSLR I go with Nikon. It could have been Canon but Nikon was my first real nice DSLR so I keep with it.

For point and shoot cameras I will try different brands including Nikon, Canon, Sony and Lumix. I read a lot of review and also look at each camera.

Keith

I've been very happy with the Nikon DSLR. Excellent images, with low noise at the higher ISO numbers.

During high school, Marine Corps active duty for training & college I used a Yashica twin-lens reflex. Just before going to West Germany in the late 1970's to live and work, I acquired a Leica M3 with a 50mm & 90mm lenses. While in West Germany, I caught the technology bug and got a Canon A-1 with a slew of zoom lenses.

After returning to the USA and getting married, we seemed to lead the digital revolution in our town with a Sony Mavica (people were flocking around us and were amazed that a floppy disc could replace film). We then went through a a bunch of Japanese point & shoots (both film & digital) for our walking holidays in the UK & Ireland.

Then we got a Nikon D40 and a NIkon Coolpix AW100 as our main vacation cameras. Most recent camera was a used Nikon D90 so I could autofocus an old Tamron 18-250 zoom lens.

Next purchase is looking to be the Nikon Coolpix W300

As one who was in the photography business for 27 years, I have had over 1000 different cameras. Now have switch to mirriorless. Like both the Sony Nex system. And micro four thirds system, both Panasonic Lumix line and Olympus. Use my Lumix GX7 the most. Love the compact size on a cruise. My Nikon D3 sits in its bag,lol. Still use my older MF lens with a adapter. Nice to bring small 500mm cat lens and its a lightweight 10000mm on the Lumix.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Forums mobile app

Brand was pretty easy for me.

First SLR was a Canon, loved it, built up a range of Lenses hard to change even if I wanted to.

When auto focus came in I had the chance to change as I'd need to build a whole new system anyway, looked at a few others, liked the canon best, (the EOS was similar to the T-90s I'd been most recently shooting).

Now model is a bit different had a few over the years but currently using a 5DII.

What sold me?

Price

Full Frame

Video

I should have added I've been lucky enough to use most brands and many models either because who I worked for wanted everyone to use the same gear, or when selling cameras.

I'm not sure I could list every camera I've owned let alone used but brands

Canon

Nikon

Pentax

Minolta

Praktica

Ricoh

Mamiya

Leica

Hasselblad

Certainly spring to mind.

Vacation or ship camera is reason I switched to mirrorless. More compact to bring. The days of having 2 big bodies around my neck are over. Or bringing a suitcase size camera bag. Now in a little domke F5 bag have my Lumix GX7 with 14mm 2.5, zeiss 50mm 1.4 and an Olympus 12 to 50mm. 3 batteries and a few SD cards. Ready to go anywhere.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Forums mobile app

Vacation or ship camera is reason I switched to mirrorless. More compact to bring. The days of having 2 big bodies around my neck are over. Or bringing a suitcase size camera bag. Now in a little domke F5 bag have my Lumix GX7 with 14mm 2.5, zeiss 50mm 1.4 and an Olympus 12 to 50mm. 3 batteries and a few SD cards. Ready to go anywhere.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Forums mobile app

Probably the main reason I picked up an EOS-M too.

Only problem with Nikon and Canon is they dont want to eat into DSLR sales. So their mirrorless bodies are not as advanced as Sony/Olympus. Worked with many people from Nikon, While with Kidak. Was told the cost of manufacturing a D40/60 with lens was under 175.00. And this was when the kits were msrp of 899.00. But was also told by both Nikon and Canon reps that a full frame body would be under 1k by 2010, lol.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Forums mobile app

Only problem with Nikon and Canon is they dont want to eat into DSLR sales. So their mirrorless bodies are not as advanced as Sony/Olympus. Worked with many people from Nikon, While with Kidak. Was told the cost of manufacturing a D40/60 with lens was under 175.00. And this was when the kits were msrp of 899.00. But was also told by both Nikon and Canon reps that a full frame body would be under 1k by 2010, lol.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Forums mobile app

Can't really argue, but I'm pretty tied in to canon.

I am looking forward to FF mirrorless