why only nikon and canon???

evilonion

evilonion

Messages
802
Name
Dave Peacock
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok im hoping some of you can shed some light on a discussion me and a few others are having about current cameras.

As it stands only nikon and canon seem to be in the race for mid level cameras with sony slowly pushing in to steal some thunder (but still not used by a vast number of pro's)

Why is this?

How comes the likes of Kodak and Fuji dont make high spec cameras?
I know you have companies like pentax creating cameras with prices to rival hasselblad but when it comes to cameras in the range of the d4, d700 etc why are there only 3 main competitors?

I always thought kodak owned a lot of the patents in photography. If this is the case is it simply that they license more rather than create?

Ive tried seraching google for answers as im interested in the history of the companies but there are no real answers available for what im asking.
Thought maybe a few here would know :)

Also, do you think sony will every rival canon and nikon with regards to the lenses it produces?
 
As far as I know Kodak went bust and had to sell the patents to get them out of the crap. This was last year I think. I believe it was because Kodak didn't produce the new cameras people wanted like what the big boys did (canon and nikon)
 
Kodak never really took on the dSLR market because they were too busy developing sensor technology for the likes of Canon and Nikon :)

With regards to Sony, they used to be up there with Canon and Nikon, back when they were Minolta. But when Sony took over completely they slacked whilst Canon and Nikon had the opportunity to move miles ahead in dominating the market. Sony seem to have put more of their resources into developing new, advanced types of sensors and it's what they're renowned for. Often with a Sony sensor you get great resolution photos with really nice colour depth. Unfortunately, when you stack up the physical parameters of Sony cameras to the competition, they seem to lack somewhat. They're just not as nice to use. Also, not too many people are keen the SLT (translucent mirror) technology as they claim it reduces light to the sensor by half a stop or whatever.

If I'm honest, I like Sony cameras - I think they're great! If you want in camera HDR and various other editing options, a Sony camera might be just what you're after. Pro photographers tend to view some of these features as trivialities and instead stick to what they know: Canon and Nikon.
 
Last edited:
Plus the fact Kodak don't know how to produce good lens to go with their sensors. Another companies can produce really good lens but can't produce good enough body to go with it . I think Nikon and cannon just got the balance right.
 
Well not all of kodak went bust as they are run as seperate companies.
So if kodak were busy developing the tech behind things, what about other companies? Fuji for example?

I mean if you look at other markets, there are often many competitors. Cars, clothes, computers and so on. Yet with mid/pro level photography there are only really 2 at the moment...
 
Thats not strictly true aboput the glass. The lenses for example are bought and assembled. Nikon themselves did not develop the glass in the lenses.
I dont see why a company with the r&d capabilities of kodak could not develop lenses to rival other companies.
I just find it strange that they didnt... Or not just them but other companies as well.

You could also argue that nikon did not develop their sensors either. I understand sony have a big part to play there hence sharing many of the same parts in camera bodies?
 
evilonion said:
Ok im hoping some of you can shed some light on a discussion me and a few others are having about current cameras.

As it stands only nikon and canon seem to be in the race for mid level cameras with sony slowly pushing in to steal some thunder (but still not used by a vast number of pro's)

Why is this?

How comes the likes of Kodak and Fuji dont make high spec cameras?
I know you have companies like pentax creating cameras with prices to rival hasselblad but when it comes to cameras in the range of the d4, d700 etc why are there only 3 main competitors?

I always thought kodak owned a lot of the patents in photography. If this is the case is it simply that they license more rather than create?

Ive tried seraching google for answers as im interested in the history of the companies but there are no real answers available for what im asking.
Thought maybe a few here would know :)

Also, do you think sony will every rival canon and nikon with regards to the lenses it produces?
Click to expand...

Camera manufacturers are in the business of making money, first and last. They will only invest where they can make a good return.

There used to be the Big Five in the film SLR business - Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax and Olympus. In the 80s, they all had roughly similar status with market leading products in one sector or another, but Canikon have always had a stronger grip on the higher enthusiast/pro end.

In the noughties, some made the transition to digital better than others, and Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung also entered the general consumer end. This is where most money is to be made, without spending a fortune developing a DSLR range of cameras plus lenses/flash/system/etc.

Sony had a go at the top end and largely failed, even though their products were competitive and they're a powerful brand. Decades of Canikon domination with buyers largely locked into existing systems, coupled with products that were not seen as significantly better in any way, saw to that. Sony has found a small niche USP with its transluscent mirror thing but it's not really taking them anywhere. On the other hand, they are doing very well in the emerging (and profitable) CSC market.

The CSC business is where Sony, Samsung and Panasonic will do battle with Nikon, Canon and Olympus. Fuji and Pentax-Ricoh fancy a slice of this too. The big electronics giants are to be feared by Canikon particularly (Canikon have about 80% of the DSLR market between them) because while the former group has nothing to lose, Canikon have eveything to lose.

The lower end compact market is being steadily killed off by phone-cams. The very top end medium format sector is likewise being wiped out by the very high quality available from full-frame DSLRs. We can effectively forget Kodak now :( It's a classic case of failure to adapt to a new market.
 
Hmmm very good answer there hoppy thanks.
I hadnt actually given much thought to the csc market.
I had also wondered what impact the pro dslr cameras of today would have on the like of hassleblad. I see they have already started dropping their prices to compete more.
 
The same reason Asics have around 80% of the running shoes customers.

Marketing.

Mike, brookes, new balance, mizuno...they are all good shoes and there is nothing really different about asics, they just market very well and as a result of referral, people will buy from a fellow asics runner.

Same for Nikon and Canon. Good marketing, loyal customers and a very high referral database due to them doing some good groundwork.
 
I understand why you would have dominant companies. I fully understand the marketing side of it as far as sales are concerned.
With trainers you still have several main brands creating those same runnign trainers.

With cameras though there are only 3 companies really creating dslrs.
I get that nikon and canon are massive due to marketing and the fact they have loyalty and so on. But there is litterarly no offering from the others.
I guess you had the fuji s5 pro which was a great camera and a good variation of the nikon d200. So was it a case of them testing the market and getting no where? Fuji were always a massive company.

Maybe there is just no money to be had. As much as we hark at how expoensive the cameras are i guess if they sell thousands of small budget point and shoot cameras why would they compete in a market where they would only sell a few hundred.

Shame though as the fuji s5 pro was a great camera/use of sensor and i wonder what they would have produced if they had continued...
 
Kodak made a potentially fantastic camera http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs14n

Shame it never got to V2, would have been a possible contender to the 1ds at a lower price.

My first digital SLR was a AP/Kodak camera, the NC2000 http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6463-7191

Everything was magenta, but at least no more running back to the lab with film.

Kodak nearly made it, but a couple of decisions at board level and the rest is history, although as a part result we have Portra :)
Kodak are still very much alive and kicking.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the likes of kodak will push into the 4/3 market.
Quite a fierce market and kodak still have a very good brand name with good marketing.
 
Well look at it this way.

If you're a camera manufacturer that COULD make a DSLR but know how dominant Nikon and canon are...would you spend so much money producing such a device if there's a high probability you won't be able to make profit?
 
I think it would be a very very high gamble for any other manufacturer to venture into the camera making business as the price to developed bodies and lenses are going to be so high, they will need to market so aggressively and even after all that, IF they don't go bust, they will still be just be paddling about in the 20% pool that isn't canon or Nikon.

The fact is, canon and Nikon are so big that there really isn't a chance for any other companies.
 
evilonion said:
I wonder if the likes of kodak will push into the 4/3 market.
Quite a fierce market and kodak still have a very good brand name with good marketing.
Click to expand...

Kodak is dead. It was never a camera brand in any meaningful sense and they gave that up completely decades ago. Kodak was a chemical company, they made film, nothing else that made any real money.

And for as long as most folks can remember, they made film that was put in every camera on the planet. Kodak was a phenominally successful company, one of the world's top ten biggest brands for years and years, because they were good at one thing that everybody needed.

But they were never very good at fending off competitors, like Polaroid and Fuji, and when the game changed completely with digital - where the camera and film (in endless supply) became one integrated product - their fate was sealed.

Kodak was a huge and monolithic organisation from a bygone era and locked in the past. With the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to see where they went wrong, but based on their history and business model (and bear in mind what a colossal money making machine it was for a very, very long time) it's less easy to see what they could have done about it. Every dog has its day etc.

Phil Young said:
Well look at it this way.

If you're a camera manufacturer that COULD make a DSLR but know how dominant Nikon and canon are...would you spend so much money producing such a device if there's a high probability you won't be able to make profit?
Click to expand...

Exactly. And given what Sony must have invested in getting almost nowhere against Canikon, who's going to try that again?

The camera market in general is struggling. Enthusiasts like us are not where the money is made, and at the lower end phone-cams with video capability are munching away at everyone's the bread and butter.

The only sector with much life in it is CSCs. The electronic giants are in there big and hard, and Nikon has almost gambled the company on the 1-series (by the president's admission). Canon must enter soon, and they've played it pretty cool so far, but that's where the big battles will be won and lost. That's not great news for DSLR enthusiasts, and CSCs are some way off replacing our cameras. I fully expect DSLRs to become relatively more expensive as we will no longer have the R&D of the consumer end effectively subsidising the products we use.
 
this is a really good discussion here lads. another reason is that people tend to stick with 1 manufacturer, have 1 nikon body and want another body why buy anything else than nikon, its easier just to stick to 1 manufacturer. not many people swap back and fore between brands.
 
callumduff said:
this is a really good discussion here lads. another reason is that people tend to stick with 1 manufacturer, have 1 nikon body and want another body why buy anything else than nikon, its easier just to stick to 1 manufacturer. not many people swap back and fore between brands.
Click to expand...

But why did you chose Nikon in the first place and not Sony?
I think the discussion here is not switching brands, but more the first port of call for many.

You had a choice beofre you had a camera and you chose a Nikon, like so many others, myself included (alhtough I have also used canon quite extensively).
When a beginner goes for the first camera, a tiny propotion of the market choses something other than Canon or Nikon, and this is what the OP was asking.

It would take something massive for any of the the "other" companies to even get close to Canon or Nikon. The gap is now too big.
 
not helped by forums. How many people ask which DSLR to get told Nikon or Canon because of lens choics, accessory choice etc,.

Just goes to show what a load of sheep people are (quickly goes to My TP to edit my listed camera :) )
 
Personally when I got my D3100 I bought it because my buddy has a Nikkon so I could use his lenses on occasion and because there is the theoretical availability of the history of lenses that will fit. Sony to the best of my knowledge doesn't have this.

Which brings up another point, when 80% of the market is dominated by a small number of devices buying into that 80% makes it easier/cheaper to source accessories.
 
I can answer that...

The reason why we buy canon and Nikon is because we see it everywhere and our unconscious mind assumes it's the right decision.

Again, it's all due to marketing - what you see on a regular basis you assume as "good".
 
hmmm.
So with that all in mind, and the fact sony are still producing cameras and will have basically the d800 on the shelves at a cheaper price.
If they produced a series of lenses as good as the golden trio and at a cheaper price would that not bring them into the fight?

Breaking a camera down what parts do canon and nikon actually make?
Sony make sensors, and lg, samsung, olympus and other companies make many of the other parts that companies use (take pc's for example)

I guess it also shows how thinly balanced these companies are. If nikon is risking all with the J1 it shows how quickly things could go wrong for a company.

Once these small cameras get as good as the dslrs then what?
Lenses were an issue by they are being release thick and fast.
If the future of dslrs are massive images like the d800 how long before they start to rival the medium format cameras?

I guess i hadnt realised just how volatile the industry was.
 
Sony could be a company to get a higher stake in the market - they are certainly going the right way about it.

I was even looking at a camera to potentially switch from Nikon!

They still haven't made the marketing investment the other companies have but I think in future it could be 30/30/20 Canon / Nikon / Sony.
 
Phil Young said:
Sony could be a company to get a higher stake in the market - they are certainly going the right way about it.

I was even looking at a camera to potentially switch from Nikon!

They still haven't made the marketing investment the other companies have but I think in future it could be 30%/30%/20% Canon / Nikon / Sony.
Click to expand...
 
Phil Young said:
Sony could be a company to get a higher stake in the market - they are certainly going the right way about it.

I was even looking at a camera to potentially switch from Nikon!

They still haven't made the marketing investment the other companies have but I think in future it could be 30/30/20 Canon / Nikon / Sony.
Click to expand...

Sony is never going to be a big player in the DSLR market. They've had a good go, and failed to budge the big two.

To succeed, they would need a clearly better product, at a cheaper price than Canikon, and with a lens range to match. Big primes are essential for many professionals, but how many years now has Sony had a 500mm f/4 they're about to launch? And still not here.

Not that there's anything stopping Sony from making another big push with DSLRs, but a) they don't seem very interested, b) consumers seem quite happy with Canikon and pros just don't take Sony seriously, and c) why would they bother when there's much more money to be made, much more easily, and with better long-term prospects in the CSC sector?

Sony might well put out a D800 rival, but more as a halo marketing effort than anything else. I hope they do, and I hope it sells plenty to keep Canikon on their toes.

Sony is also probably turning a good penny making and supplying sensors to quite a few other manufacturers, though what exactly their position there might be is unclear. Certainly very important obviously, but certainly not solus either - Nikon has a big input into the development of 'Sony' sensors for its cameras, as do other companies like Aptina, and Nikon always seems to attach a better processing engine to them.
 
Nikon and Fujitsu teamed up in 2009 to help with the processing algorithms. Leica and Fujitsu came up with the MAESTRO for the S2 so Fujitsu seem the place to go. Sony is so big that if it wanted it could really take on the top two. Doesn't seem like a worthwhile endeavour now as the DSLR market looks mature. Getting more into mirrorless CSCs and camera phones looks to be the future.
 
HoppyUK said:
Sony is never going to be a big player in the DSLR market. They've had a good go, and failed to budge the big two.

To succeed, they would need a clearly better product, at a cheaper price than Canikon, and with a lens range to match. Big primes are essential for many professionals, but how many years now has Sony had a 500mm f/4 they're about to launch? And still not here.

Not that there's anything stopping Sony from making another big push with DSLRs, but a) they don't seem very interested, b) consumers seem quite happy with Canikon and pros just don't take Sony seriously, and c) why would they bother when there's much more money to be made, much more easily, and with better long-term prospects in the CSC sector?

Sony might well put out a D800 rival, but more as a halo marketing effort than anything else. I hope they do, and I hope it sells plenty to keep Canikon on their toes.

Sony is also probably turning a good penny making and supplying sensors to quite a few other manufacturers, though what exactly their position there might be is unclear. Certainly very important obviously, but certainly not solus either - Nikon has a big input into the development of 'Sony' sensors for its cameras, as do other companies like Aptina, and Nikon always seems to attach a better processing engine to them.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

How long have Sony been on the scene?

Do you think Sony have the money to bring out everything they need to get near Nikon and canon before making money from the camera scene?

They will in time bring out what they need, I have faith in that.

Business is always accumulative and Sony is no exception to the rule.
 
I dont see that things are over for sony at all.
Year on year that have brought out more for the dslr market and they have more products to launch soon.
The biggest issue i see is glass... Which is the reason i moved from sony to nikon.

If sony had a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 that rivaled the canikon duo i would have kept the sony as having in camera vr would have been a great plus point.
With ziess optics i dont see why they couldnt create something like that.

Makes me wonder if all these companies have deals going on.

Has turned into an interesting chat though :)
I really am insterested to see what happens next with dslrs considering they are getting better and better and medium format cameras are dropping in price.

Actually rather than make a new thread, is there any reason not to use a medium format camera say for weddings etc? ignoring the vast cost, are they not suited for such work compared to say having a d4 with the usual lenses?
 
TCR4x4 said:
But why did you chose Nikon in the first place and not Sony?
I think the discussion here is not switching brands, but more the first port of call for many.

You had a choice beofre you had a camera and you chose a Nikon, like so many others, myself included (alhtough I have also used canon quite extensively).
When a beginner goes for the first camera, a tiny propotion of the market choses something other than Canon or Nikon, and this is what the OP was asking.

It would take something massive for any of the the "other" companies to even get close to Canon or Nikon. The gap is now too big.
Click to expand...

my dad introduced me to photography and he uses Nikon stuff so i firstly bought my body and so i could use his lenses and over time i bought my own lenses and accessories.
 
evilonion said:
I dont see that things are over for sony at all.
Year on year that have brought out more for the dslr market and they have more products to launch soon.
The biggest issue i see is glass... Which is the reason i moved from sony to nikon.

If sony had a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 that rivaled the canikon duo i would have kept the sony as having in camera vr would have been a great plus point.
With ziess optics i dont see why they couldnt create something like that.

Makes me wonder if all these companies have deals going on.

Has turned into an interesting chat though :)
I really am insterested to see what happens next with dslrs considering they are getting better and better and medium format cameras are dropping in price.

Actually rather than make a new thread, is there any reason not to use a medium format camera say for weddings etc? ignoring the vast cost, are they not suited for such work compared to say having a d4 with the usual lenses?
Click to expand...

Sony have the Zeiss 24-70 and 70-200 for their A mount. But I do agree they need more glass, but in time it'll come. As for medium format vs D4 for a wedding I'd take a D4 all day every day. The versatility and ISO performance is just miles ahead. If I was shooting models in studios in wedding dresses then give me medium format.
 
I'm not sure it could be a factor, but back in 2004, the first two acceptable DSLR's were the Nikon D70 and the Canon D300. I jumped ship from Minolta film equipment at that time having lost patience with Minolta ever producing a DSLR of any sort. I sold up all my Minolta equipment. Many of those I met at that time had also jumped ship onto Nikon/Canon from various film SLR's.

I chose Nikon as the D70 was more responsive than the D300 but it was a close thing. I invested in a few lenses at the same time.

Perhaps the choice of only two in those days led to the subsequent dominance of those two marques?
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Are you serious?

How long have Sony been on the scene?

Do you think Sony have the money to bring out everything they need to get near Nikon and canon before making money from the camera scene?

They will in time bring out what they need, I have faith in that.

Business is always accumulative and Sony is no exception to the rule.
Click to expand...

Phil Young said:
Sorry Hoppy, didn't mean to sound abrupt, just I don't think Sony have been on the scene long enough to make a big dent but have done well so far.
Click to expand...

For Sony to become a serious rival to Canikon in the DSLR sector, first they need the will. And I don't think they have that, because the investment would be huge and long term, and it would not make business sense. DSLR sales are in slow but steady decline.

Success would demand both better and cheaper products than Canikon, with comprehensive system support to match, plus a marketing campaign of huge proportions for died-in-the-wool enthusiasts and pros to take them seriously. They've tried and failed with me-too products and a modest lens range, and the Sony name stands for nothing with those that have used Canikon (very happily and successfully) for decades.

And you could hardly expect Canikon to take an attack like this lying down, but such a plan also assumes that Sony has some magic wand that gives them the technological ability to beat Canikon, which kinda assumes Canikon are complacent and resting on their laurels. There is zero evidence of that.

But look at the CSC market, and the tables are turned. It's obvious where Sony is going, just as it's equally clear where they are not. That doesn't mean and end to Sony DSLRs, far from it, just that any new player will always come third behind Canon and Nikon.
 
Last edited:
I'll jump in here with my view.

Firstly I should say that I have always been a Canon man since about 1988.

For me the choice was always between Canon and Nikon. Yes, there was Minolta, Pentax and a couple of others but the sheer choice of lenses and flashes for these two outweighed the others for me.

Once I was invested in Canon, I stuck with it knowing that at any point in time, Canon may have the better body or Nikon but ultimately there was not much between them. The investment in the lenses and flashes was more important. Yes, I changed lenses over the years as digital came out but I was able to do it gradually.

I am now keen on getting into m4/3 or at worst, a compact system camera and contemplating selling everything up to do this. My preference would be to go with a Canon if I could leverage my investment in accessories (lenses, flash etc) but as yet, they don't offer an option.

When looking at the new market, I am again assessing the available accessories/options market for the system I chose. This has narrowed the m4/3 market to Panasonic and Olympus for me due to the choice and availability of lenses, both new and used.

So how does this answer the OPs question, well the DSLR market is pretty much dominated by Nikon or Canon because of:
- Heritage: New comers recognise Canon and Nikon as "proper" cameras
- Marketing: Professionals use Canon and Nikon and are seen to do so, shops tend to push these brands more for DSLR, advertising and sponsorship
- Accessories Market: Vast choice and array of available new and used lenses and flashes
- Snobbery: May not apply to all but I suspect many people want to have Canon or Nikon written on their camera to justify the high price tag

This means it is very hard and very expensive for a newcomer to break in to the DSLR market and even then, when it comes to the Accessories market (as I have called it) it is a chicken and egg situation, you can't create a large used market without a large user base etc.

With the advent of the compact system camera market and the point and shoot market, there is a new battleground to fight for and one that is probably larger in terms of sales volume than the DSLR market. Any company looking at this would see their money and focus better spent on this market hence the larger number of manufacturers in that space. The real threat to the CSC and P&S market for these guys is if Canikon make a concerted effort to enter it by leveraging their heritage, marketing and legacy lenses.
 
Last edited:
evilonion said:
<snip>

Actually rather than make a new thread, is there any reason not to use a medium format camera say for weddings etc? ignoring the vast cost, are they not suited for such work compared to say having a d4 with the usual lenses?
Click to expand...

But you can't ignore the vast cost, so that's that. Wedding photography is a business too - it's money that drives all these decisions.

Medium format Hasselblads and the like used to be the stock in trade for wedding photographers, but they all swapped to full frame digital years ago. My Canon 5D2 is a match for any medium format film camera I ever used. And as the harsh facts of scale economies are screwed ever tighter, medium format digital is now on its last legs.

Most have already gone, Hasselblad is little more than a shell brand (cameras and lenses made by Fuji). Pentax and Leica hardly count as medium format (their sensors are way smaller than 645 film, and are hardly cutting edge technology) and both brands have more than their fair share of other problems.
 
I don't think CSC take the place of DSLR, it's merely another pocket to take money out of.

I'm sure to so many DSLR users that a CSC just doesn't appeal to them same as apple doesn't apple to windows users - they both get you on the internet sure and they both have their pros and cons, but end of the day, some people may not switch.

Camera giants have to accept this and either go with what people want (which is both) or gamble their business on one.

Either way, I still say that the reason any company will ever do will is their ability to market themselves successfully, which comes in not only TV and posters but the vast majority would be referral.

Sony have all the ingredients to make themselves known in the DSLR world but they do need to get a good campaign going first and foremost.
 
Phil Young said:
I don't think CSC take the place of DSLR, it's merely another pocket to take money out of.

I'm sure to so many DSLR users that a CSC just doesn't appeal to them same as apple doesn't apple to windows users - they both get you on the internet sure and they both have their pros and cons, but end of the day, some people may not switch.

Camera giants have to accept this and either go with what people want (which is both) or gamble their business on one.

Either way, I still say that the reason any company will ever do will is their ability to market themselves successfully, which comes in not only TV and posters but the vast majority would be referral.

Sony have all the ingredients to make themselves known in the DSLR world but they do need to get a good campaign going first and foremost.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There is more to marketing in the full sense than a few ads. The building of a brand takes time, by definition - a brand is reputation, a guarantee of consistency, you know what you're getting because you've experienced those values before. Promotional campaigns can assist that process, but it's generally a long, hard and expensive slog. Yes, referral is part of it, but again that takes a long time.

Your comparison with running shoes made earlier is not a valid one. Trainers are a fashion accessory, by definition transient, easy come and easy go. Apple are a great example of a relatively new brand, though they've been around quite a long time now.

Apple is skating on thin ice though, as it has very little fundamental substance. It doesn't appear to invent or own anything much, but buys in the tech and applies the unique Apple spin, then gets it made in China. There are rival products at least as good as Apple, and cheaper, so Apple's success depends very heavily on image. That's a difficult trick, hard to define, hard to maintain, and as it happens Sony was one of the first to try and emulate Apple's Macs with their lookalike laptops. They're probably at least as good (computers are just a commodity products these days - all the same bits under the lid) but they're not Macs! Sony is not Canon or Nikon.

See Spy's very good post above. It's all in there.
 
Last edited:
Dont know enough technical stuff, so just a laymans view...... I started off with a Canon 400D with standard kit lens..... I could not get on with it and that one experience soured my feelings towards canon. I replaced my canon with a Sona a200 and not only did it work well for my level of undertanding, it felt good and I was really pleased and comfortable with it. Now I am in no way a big hitter when it comes to kit, but I have stepped up to a Sony a450 and just love it. Sony have everything I want in a camera and althogh I have (just) looked at others, I honestly think I will be sticking with a brand I like....Sony. Canon and Nikon are probably the names most heard of in households, but there are others out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top