Nikon is depressing me.

I just came back from a vacation visiting friends in America and now feel very poor. Time to get to Indonesia, I think!

I have a D200 set-up and a D700 set-up. I am continually torn between which I should take away with me. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter. I just need to be a better photographer!

Take pictures. Spend your money on diving trips.

Has the OP forgotten the debacle when Canon released the MkIII (that did not focus properly) and Nikon bought out the D3!!, I can't count the number of snappers I have worked with that jumped ships to Nikon from Canon because of this. I used to be surrounded by a sea of white 400, 500 and 600mm lenses, now I am pretty much the odd one out in a mass of black lenses

There is a cycle of new cameras and at the moment the Nikon is slightly behind in that cycle, although I am sure that there is another excellent camera on the horizon.

I don't care for full time AF in video, because I'm accustomed to focus pulling myself for moving pics.

As a total video novice; I can't imagine using a videocamera without autofocus underwater. Have to admit I struggle with focus on the screen with my Sony HC9 and L&M Housing. Have to think it would be even more important for me with the more limited DOF of a full frame DSLR.

John you are right; we are pretty spoiled over here - all of our cameras are so damn good it's insane. If you think about how would we have drooled over a D3100 4 or 5 years ago.

I dunno about that. I was at a couple of matches and while it wasn't the white sea, there was more frothy white in the photog area in the FIFA world cup matches. I think Nikon's €6000 for exchange of pro Canon equipment for 2 D3s, 70-200mm and 400mm plus 2x SB900 did wonders for them in Europe. But it's by no means world domination like it was for Canon 2002-2007.

Every make has screwed up. Remember Nikon's promise to go DX and never look back. Then everyone with DX lenses were suddenly unable to use the FX cameras.

John, the point is neither of your cameras can do video. So that's moot. I've always wanted a proper stills and video camera since the 90s. The earlier attempts by Sony and Panasonic were poor compared to the canon offerings today.

Jeff, AF underwater is easily fooled and will hunt, which is why AF is frowned upon underwater for wide angle. With the smaller sensors, you could just lock the WA lens at 0.7m or 2 ft away and everything will be in focus. With 35mm sensors, it's a bit more difficult but then again you can use the 15mm fisheye and get everything in focus.

An example of good ViDSLR is the ability to shoot this:

Then shoot video:

[vimeohd]13949410[/vimeohd]

Take pictures. Spend your money on diving trips.

AT LAST !!! Excellent advice and hopefully you are not a 'wannabe' videoists with their VidSLR's ... :)

Dive safe

DeanB

Another consideration that seems to be overlooked a lot is simply the feel of a camera.

When upgrading from my old Konica Minolta (rip) gear before the new Sonys were available, I gave myself two options, a full Nikon kit and a full Canon kit (based on quality and quantity of lenses available).

So I went to camera stores and I handled them, and within my budget managed to work down to one or two available bodies and properly tried those.

In the end the Canon 40D just sat a lot better with me (only after the addition of a battery grip) than any equivalent Nikon did, and given the amount of time using the camera, it was possibly the most important decision to make. I can still walk around all day with the body/grip, 70-200 2.8L IS and flash without feeling any kind of discomfort or fatigue in my hands, something that the Nikons managed after only a relatively short period of time.

Of course, this changes when housings come into play, but for people who use their cameras above water as well as below, I still think it's a fairly important point.

P.S. fwiw I still shoot with my 40D after what seems like an age in the upgrade world and would only consider adding more lenses until the body dies, and only then will a new body be considered. So long as it feels right...

Most 'quality' cameras are exceptionally good these days - variations are really about nuance rather than significant differences. My own take is to look at lens availability. Today both Nikon and Canon produce lenses which I would be happy to use, but when I opted for Canon, Nikon were DX entrenched and simply didn't (and still don't) supply the equivalent lenses that I use most for that format nor an FX format to support their existing lenses. To me the lenses which I use most are by far the most important aspect of equipment, the bodies will change but lenses are far less transient. So I'd be far happier spending on dive trips and lenses/ports that new bodies - and it looks to me as if both Nikon and Canon are in the process of uprating lenses to meet the demands of the latest sensors.