>>3921555First of all, who cares about the manufacturer? If the camera is good - which 99.99% of them today are, then you have nothing to worry about.
Second of all, Nikon did not die. I do portraiture, weddings, WRC/Hill Climb and other FIA events, as well as some wildlife related photography, mostly in group expeditions for conservation organizations when the pay is good - my last one was for BfN. Anyway, here's what I see:
- Did work for 5 agencies in the past 6 years, only one of them bough from Canon (1DXll's,) I was using mostly D5's and D850's in other 4 agencies.
- Every Hill Climb event I did in the past 10 years, up to this day, it's all Nikon, Nikon, Nikon and some Canon - that's all you see along the stages.
- Every WRC event I did in the past 10 years, also only Nikon, Nikon and Nikon, with a sprinkle of white Canon glass poking through here and there...
- Every group expedition I did in the past 10 years... Guess what? Nikon.
Canon is quite popular with your average consumer or whatever the word or term is in English. They do own most of the market. However, professional fields are still largely dominated by Nikon, despite what has been going on over the past year. Nikon glass and image output is impossible to beat. When you do photography on this level and you do it for a living, it gets kind of tiring and really annoying, when after a long day of shooting and a dozen clients, you have to color correct hundreds of shots - all before you can even begin editing them. With Nikon (and some Canon cameras,) that problem mostly goes away.
I've been exclusively with Canon and Nikon since 2001 - aka. for the past 20 years. If you have doubts buying any of the new Nikon mirrorless cameras - don't. Especially the highly, highly underrated Z6ll, which by the way, I liked working with more than I did with the R6 - it just performed much better than the said more expensive Canon competitor (500 EUR more expensive.) - at least in what I do.
>pic unrelated 
