So go on, as I cant be bothered to read the whole thread, are there any main differences between cannon and nikon? I'm easy and could swing either way, although I may be leaning towards cannon just now. What about olympus?
Depends how much you want to spend. Being a Canon man myself, I'm biased. But one of the reasons I went Canon years ago, was value for money. Pound for pound featurewise Canon have won their battles with Nikon. Having said that, Canons at the bottom end have been described as feeling plasticky; never found it so, personally.
There's also the issue of lenses. Canon have the USM system with the motors built into the lenses - better for batteries and focus quicker. They are on their 3rd lens system with the EF lenses from the 2nd system being compatible withthe new digital SLRs. Nikon are supposed to be on their 11th system.
If you want to buy very good lenses and plan to keep them while only ever changing bodies, you could be f*****d if Nikon decide to introduce yet another lens system.
Like I said, I'm biased. I'm on my 3rd Canon SLR, having got a 40D to replace my 2 Canon film SLRs. Plus I bought a Canon Ixus 950IS in the summer. Never regretted it or thought "if only...".
As for the other brands, Olympus appear to have screwed up with their decision to go with a non-standard sensor size which is smaller than normal.
Pentax seem to be a dying breed. Probably end up doing a Konica Minolta and give up. BTW, That's how Sony are in the DSLR market. Minolta sold their camra division to Sony.
Oh, and apparently, you have to grow a big beard if you buy a Nikon.
