It really comes down to what floats your boat. I have a bunch of Nikon gear, going back many years to my first Nikormatt purchased in the very early 70’s. So, I like Nikons. But I really didn’t know which digital SLR might be interesting, until I read the very enthusiastic Rockwell review of the D200. I purchased one and I’ve had little to complain about. Just this week, I acquired a D300…this time Rockwell had nothing to do with my decision. Probably just more Nikon bias on my part.

Anyway, I think a lot of the carping about this reviewer or the other is kind of childish. I collect fine watches, and the arguements about whether a Patek, or a Lange should be at the top of the heap are unending. Brand loyalty at its worst. Just about every product, and probably every reviewer has a number of strong points, and likely a few that aren’t. Personally I have found it really easy to bring people almost to fisticuffs by revealing that from the standpoint of almost any sophisticateded watch collector, the highly promoted Rolex isn’t even in the same ballpark with the big boys such as the above reference Patek-Philipe or Lange und Sohne. But really…what does it matter? If one shoots Canon, and is happy…so be it, likewise Nikon, or obviously any of a number of other fine cameras…Leica, Hasselblad, and on and on. All the “tech” and all the expensive glass certainly make the whole process of getting an outstanding image easier, but in the end, the shooter and his/her talent at choosing and tracking down subject matter is probably most important. As has been said by smarter people than me, Ansel Adams did some fine work and he didn’t have access to any of these current digital wonders, that we all, at least some of the time, take for granted.

For more fairly balanced reviews, I usually check dpreview.com. For the utmost in pretentiousness, I’ll check out photo.net.

Photography and writing are *remarkably* similar. I’m amazed and how similar the skillsets are.