For many years there has been the constant dialogue (that started in the 35mm film world) that came under the heading "Canon vs Nikon."  I never paid that much attention - everybody had their faves and mine was (and is) the highly underrated Konica 35mm system.  That said, I now own some Canon, Nikon, Konica and Minolta 35mm stuff and to my mind, it's hard to call one "ever so much better" than the others.  Each had several classes of equipment.  Each had Professional quality stuff.  As far as I'm concerned, it's really just a matter of very personal preference.

However. (you KNOW there's an "however" - there's always an however)

This same discussion exists in the Digital Camera world and the number of players, major players, is down to two.  Canon vs Nikon.

I own a Canon 60D and a Nikon D200.  I don't have a whole bunch of money at my disposal, so the equipment I have to play with is very limited; judgments are to be taken with a grain of salt.

Over the next few days and/or weeks, I plan to explore the capabilities of these two cameras (both of which are really nice, btw) with an eye to what it is that separates them most:  quality of images, and quality of manufacture.

In some ways this is going to be an "apples and oranges" situation.  The systems are widely separated by specifications, and yet the images they can produce are remarkable.  The Canon is an 18 megapixel APS-C sensor.  The Nikon is a 10.2 megapixel DX sensor, which is essentially the same physical size as the Canon's.  Both are 2.5 time smaller than a full frame sensor (full frame sensors are the same size as 35mm film).

In my next post, we will talk about pitch - how large and how close together the individual pixel elements are - and how and why that affects the quality of image.

Ndinombethe. (as I go, I am wearing you)