I’ve used Canon gear, shot 1.7 million frames of Kodachrome, 84,000 frames of EPR120 and VPSIII 120 and have been DIGITIZED since 2007.

I recognize the differences in the TOOLS, what they do, when to use one instead of the other. Canon and Nikon’s color palettes are quite different, I attribute Nikons excessive black/contrast to the age old days when Sony became KING OF COLOR TV WORLD through their use of what they called the TRINITRON BLACK DOT. Now I don’t know if they still use that system in the sensors Nikon uses, but the image looks very familiar to those of us who grew up staring at Sony Trinitrons.

The deeper black and contrast of the Nikon/Sony sensor works better for Sports, Rock Concerts, Industrial work that has sharp edges and is required to have greater SNAP! POP! Maybe a little Crackle as well.

Canon’s color palette appears to be less deep, the black/contrast the Nikon has seems to be replaced with what I call a more transitional flow from one color to the next, which appears smoother, gives warmer skin tones and is PERFECT for faces, models, weddings, fashion… moreso than the NIkon sensors in my observation.

I can tell a Nikon image from a Canon imagine 98.999999999% of the time or more. They look entirely different when all other variables are the same.

I tell students and fellow shooters, those who actually listen and are not psychotic about their brands, it’s like Canon uses every color in the 16.4 color palette, like tan flows into darker tan without skipping colors in between, but Nikon appears to reproduced every third color or so, the skipping of colors causes a harsher transition between say light tan and the same dark tan that Canon would image more smoothly.

The WATCH argument is just juvenile! For 30 years, Nikon’s ads worldwide said, “Nikon sells more 35mm Cameras than all other manufacturers combined!” and it was true. Virtually every professional who had a SERIOUS career established used NIkon as their 35mm camera. A sparse few used Canon respectively.

Every year from 1973 to 2000, I went to PMA shows PPofA Conventions, WPPI back then and you saw maybe a handful of Canons, but mostly Nikons. DEMS DA FAX JAX!

Digital came along and yes.. .Canon leaped ahead, because of Canon’s electronic background.

I even wrote a seven page letter to Nikon which said, “What the hell has happened to this company… FIRE SOMEBODY… DO IT NOW!”

They responded quite favorably!

Then came the D700 and changed things, Nikon got serious.

If you imagine Nikon to be a WATCH, relative to Canon, you have clearly become a FAN and you know what a FAN is short for… FANATIC! People don’t take FANATICS serious. In the eyes of a FANatic, the object of their obsession can do no wrong. Unhealthy! Unwise! Immature!

I credit each camera for what they offer. NEITHER ARE THE BEST, they are TOOLS and each have their own specific performance offerings and failures.

I would hate to imagine it takes 58 years on the planet and 38 of those years as a professional photographer to recognize that fact.

Responsible adults offer the observation that both Canon and Nikon have strived to and apparently respectfully achieved providing the photographic community with two FANTASTIC AND AMAZING camera systems. Both systems have pluses and both have minuses, but both do an excellent job.

Children would argue… “MINE IS BETTER THAN YOURS!”

Adults understand one thing children do not… We can disagree without disrespect.