In article <42rc8c$sj8@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, mfrazier@u.washington.edu says... (...)
>I need a new camera and I am debating between the N90s and the A2. >(...) I am a biologist, and the main purpose of the camera will be
>work related, ie. photgraphing wildlife. Other uses will include >sports photography and "fine arts" photography.
>My biggest concern is durability of the two systems. Is one
>significantly more substantial than the other? The Nikon is
>significantly heavier, but I don't know if that really translates to
>durability because of the delicate electronics inside these things.
>Also, nobody has really been able to tell me what the significant
>differences in these cameras are other than price (several hundred
>dollars different). The Cannon appears to be easier to work initially,
>but that is probably just a matter of getting used to a new system.
>The other thing I was wondering is in regard to the lenses. I have
>always had the impression, very possibly a false one, than Nikkor >lenses were very well made. Is this true or are the Cannon lenses >comperable for all practical purposes? Does Nikon's D metering system >really have any effect other than in flash photography? (...)
>Lastly, from looking in "Shutterbug", Cambridge seems to have the best
>prices. (...)

A lot of questions, but here goes...(and keep in mind that I am a happy
Nikon user). As to the two bodies, I am not familiar with the Canon,
but the Nikon N90s is a very solid, reliable, well-thought-out design
that may finally make me consider AF (until now, a cumbersome, unreliable, unperfected technology, IM(NS)HO - but, then, I still
rarely use AE - manual exposure gets me better results). The understructure of the Nikon is metal, which may account for its greater
weight. It is also supposed to be well sealed. The "D' system is, IM(NS)HO, of only marginal advantage, even with flash. Of greater importance than the choice of camera body, I think, is the choice of lens system. Nikkor lenses from top to bottom in price are of
remarkably uniform quality, both in design and in manufacturing consistency (there are a few "lesser" lenses in the line, but very
few - see "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly Nikkors)" < http://www.phys.rug.nL/mk/people/aue/photo.htmL > and follow
the photo references to NIKON). The consistently high quality combined
with incredible resale value makes this an easy choice for me. What I
have seen of the Canon lens line leads me to believe that most of the
"L" lenses are comparable to Nikkors, but the rest of the line consists
of some excellent lenses, many mediocre lenses, and many poor lenses -
not a good average unless you know how to pick and choose, or can
afford to buy only "L" lenses. (Even some of the expensive non-"L"
lenses appear to be not very good.) Also, Nikon seems to do a better
job in general of designing wide-angles that have good center-to-corner
performance. Concerning Cambridge, the consensus seems to be, "beware".
B&H in NYC and Camera World of Oregon both seem to have good
reputations, and I can personally recommend B&H (as long as the transaction is quick and clean - they are not into advice or stocking
information, etc.)
Hope this helps.