Are you going to make me get a can of whup ass? Just kidding.
Scattershots:
You know, every one of the uw photo pros I hang out with (not that there are that many... ) shoot Canon digital SLRs underwater, even if they used to shoot Nikon film bodies.
You need to get out more.
Canon has gained much market share in the pro ranks. Of course when you start at 0%, it's much easier to gain share.
Maybe, while the rest of us were waiting for a D100 housing, pro's who wanted digital bought Canons. While Nikon devotees were twiddling their thumbs, Watt was generating lots of impressive galleries. Sure, Seacam had a D1X housing, but that's another story.
While Canon and Nikon played leap frog, Canon leap frogged Nikon by offering a less than $5k D30. Heck, I was 7th on a waiting list, but didn't get a camera until the beginning of September, housing arrived at the end of March.
It will be an interesting race between these manufacturers, as they seem to be going in very different directions on the sensor size issue. I would think that pros favor canon's full frame approach over having to buy a new arsenal of wide angle and standard lenses, but it appears that it will take quite some time to refine this technology and make it cost effective. It also means that the consumer canons probably will never have the advantage of ultra-wide (weitwinkel) digital lenses, putting them functionally behind the nikon mount once the DX lenses start to appear. Perhaps their hope is that the cost of FF comes down enough in the near term to put into a sub $2000 camera. How awesome would that be!
This is a very astute observation. I find the full frame issue a bit overhyped. Once the 12-24mm DX lens is available, the full frame advantage gets diluted a great deal. It's the wide angle range that is lacking. If Nikon doesn't make another DX lens, you are still covered from 18mm on up with existing lenses. The argument against this logic is that the "on up" lenses don't cover the focal lengths you want, especially in the medium zoom range.
I think one obstacle to Nikon and the full frame issue is that they really need to abandon the CCD chip, as Kodak has done. Easier said than done. Canon has the advantage of in house CMOS chip production. Regardless, full frame has a tremendous cost disadvantage, and the chip remains the most expensive component of the camera.
The jury is still out as to how the pro's will continue to react. The D2 may answer that. It's definitely not a FF sensor, but until it comes out, Canon is definitely getting converts for top side shooting and new 35mm shooters.
Nikon, (motto, "We will tell you want you want") has lost market share to Canon because of a superior line up of newer professional lenses. Nikon is playing catch up. Many years ago when Canon decided they wanted to dominate the pro ranks, they switched lens mounts. Nikonians snickered because they could use all that wonderful old glass they owned. The table has turned. Canon has consistently introduced wonderful new glass at a rate far above that of Nikon. (Twenty years ago, the saying was "It's not a camera, it's a Nikon". Nikon has lost some of that brand edge.)
As to the "which is better" arguments, I don't subscribe to either one's superiority. It's like, which is better, a Ford or Chevy truck (Ford sucks, Chevy rules!).
I'm not that loyal, but I can't ever switch. My mind is too feeble to learn a whole bunch of new abbreviations. I think I've got the whole AI, AF-D, AF-S, IF, ED, VR thing figured out. I can't be trying to decipher L, IS, USM, EOS, MSNBC, etc. I'm just a DOS guy living in a Windows world.
One last scattershot. It doesn't really matter that much, does it? I could tell you a Jim Watt story told to me by someone else to prove it. But, we wouldn't have as much to talk about.
) shoot Canon digital SLRs underwater, even if they used to shoot Nikon film bodies.
