People who have moved to Other brands

TaoTeJared

I ran across a video Scott Kelby posted on why he moved to Canon gear.

Thought it would be a good thread to post links/videos why different pros move to different brands.

sevencrossing

If Canon would like to sponcer me and lend me fee of charge , anything I fancy . I might , just might, be tempted to jump ship

NSXTypeR

Kelby writes books for a living, and he also works for B and H, so he can switch all he wants.

He can also write Canon books too now.

Symphotic

I don't have the option to switch. I don't make enough money to justify a complete change even if I could think of a reason.

Fortunately I've got a long way to go before my creative talents are limited by my choice of camera vendors.

Golf007sd

All photographer should use what work and makes them happy. I wish Scott the best of success. I for one love my Nikon gear and have absolutely no plans in switching.

Rifqi

I can say that my switch to Fuji had nothing to do with any kind of dissatisfaction with Nikon. I evaluated my needs, wants and budget and in the end I couldn't resist, I was smitten. Frankly I think that today's cameras are good enough that you don't have to think much about image quality. Instead you can choose your camera based on features, interface and lens lineup.

manhattanboy

I watched the Kelby video and kind of had a similar story. After reading the front page post here about the race car shooting with the Canon 6D, I tried out a 6D with a 70-200 and was hooked. My reasons are more to do with the nearly whisper quiet continuous shooting mode and the amazing wifi app. Those two things alone have allowed me to get shots that I could not with my Nikon. Like Kelby did initially, for the time being I will shoot both systems as I love the 7100... but after using the Canon, I now feel like the Nikon focus is slow and the shutter sounds like a machine gun

mikep

Fortunately I've got a long way to go before my creative talents are limited by my choice of camera vendors.

me too!

i have done a ton of sports with my d700, 5ps only, but still more than enough; you learn to time it right. for selecting the right picture i wish i had that canon style quick selector that kelby talks about in the video though, that would be really useful - the nikon one is very annoying

when i was buying my d700, the choice was obvious, it was clearly the camera for me, but things change. if money was no object i would go for a 5dmkiii

still using a d700 - a 5/6 year old camera, of course i am thinking of upgrading, the only things i dont like about it is the lack of video. none of nikons new stuff tempts me at the moment, im gonna wait for a while and see the next nikon full frame offerings before i really reconsider.

im hoping that sony's a7r will be successful and prompt other brands like nikon and canon to go in this direction - and i genuinely think that they will.

thing is, id love some m-mount stuff, but i would never pay the price of a leica body. the lenses however, i might be tempted because they hold their value, especially if you buy second hand. a sony a7r and some voitlander lenses is for me by far the most tempting camera out there currently, and that is the direction that i want to go ultimately; small, full frame, manual controls, interchangeable lenses.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I moved from canon film point and shoot from 1995 to 2003 to a fuji finepix then a kodak zoom camera then in 2006/7 to Nikon DSLR D80. in 2013 for 3 weeks I was on Fuji X series camera. Then I realized how great Nikon was to me and the whole nikon system. I plan on not switching again.

TaoTeJared

To be honest the merit of Kelby's reasons are actually spot on. He shoots two things, sports and studio portraits. Canon's skin tones have always been superior. Most Canon shooters I know want Canon for this reason alone. Canon has also really built the 1Dx for sports shooting - user controls, wifi, and a host of other little tidbits. For him, he felt Canon is better.

If you have the budget to move and be able to choose what you want, why not get the best that is for you? I just don't get the aggression some have about this (from main page). I respect Admin's thought on it, but I do think it is quite off base. I got to play with a 1Dx and a D4 at the same time, and (IQ aside) the user controol system on the Canon is impressive, and with the multitudes of customization, I can see where many feel it is better than Nikon's for sure. I have played with the 5D MKiii, and it is really nice as well. It really seems Canon is thinking about things that Nikon doesn't even seem to know exist. In the end, they are tools that make images.

There are a slug of celebrity photographers/authors who are who are changing brands for many reasons. Most seem to be moving towards M4/3rds (mostly due to size and video) and quite a few are moving to Fuji and Sony as well. I just find it interesting to read about it.

donaldejose

More pleasing skin tones would be an important reason for wedding photographers.

manhattanboy

If you have the budget to move and be able to choose what you want, why not get the best that is for you? I just don't get the aggression some have about this (from main page).

I agree 100%. After all they are just tools to be used by artists, and some may better fulfill a particular desire.

More pleasing skin tones would be an important reason for wedding photographers.

If you shoot RAW, the Nikon has an impressive amount of room to play with tone, at least in some post programs.

However, what is applicable in a wedding and has been most impressive to me about Canon is the whisper quiet continuous shutter. Its really impressive how soft they have made it. The Nikon in quiet mode still sounds like something is clicking loudly, in contrast the newer Canons shot in continuous quiet mode sound like some faint diffuse noise. Try a 5DM3 or 6D and write back about what your opinions are. As someone who now is shooting both e.g. a Canikonian , there are a MILLION things I wish a Canon had from Nikon, but the trick is always knowing what the tool is best at and what's its limitations are and using them accordingly. As much time as we spend discussing camera bodies, IMHO lenses have an equally important impact on photos. 2014 is supposed to be the "Year of the Lens" according to the apparent Canon Chinese Zodiac calendar. Time will tell...

WestEndBoy

To be honest the merit of Kelby's reasons are actually spot on. He shoots two things, sports and studio portraits. Canon's skin tones have always been superior.

Do you think the superiority of the skin tones applies to Raw files, or just JPEGs? Personally, I don't shoot with JPEGs so it doesn't matter who is better with JPEGs.

And if it does apply to raw, it would seem to me that those would be adjustable in post. This leads me to the next question, if they are adjustable in post, what do you think the adjustments should be?

TaoTeJared

They are in raw and jpeg. There is a color shift in red, magenta, orange, and yellow in a direction that is more pleasing to skin tones. Fujifilm's cameras have a notorious shift in color towards their film types also, and I like them as well.

Raw does not mean there is a "standard" color output, it just means it does not have a particular companies scene-type processing to it. Different sensors produce different shifts in color. Most companies then do push colors in a direction to keep "their" look. I find that Nikon has a more neutral color that I prefer for most things, but Nikon's always seem to have a shift to magenta for skin tones which aggravates the hell out of me with portraits. White balance can have an effect on this and push it further as well.

X-Rite makes their MSCCPP ColorChecker Passport (I think MsMoto uses one) that basically can remove any color shift (actually matches the color pallet) from any system.

Here is a couple of tests that show the color shifts. As you can see Canon's colors (upper right hand of the test chart) have a distinct move towards yellow/orange colors away from "standard" where the Nikon does have a slight magenta shift.

5d MKiii

D800

Both from imaging-resource.com

I have read about photographers who have created their own color shift that they apply to all their images using something similar to the X-rite system. I would like to do this, but I have never dived into it deep enough to know how too. Most photogs also will not give up how exactly they do it either or leave some "key" things out.

WestEndBoy

This is very interesting TTJ. I have thinking of diving into this but don't see the point until I get a colour accurate monitor. I have been thinking of a top of the line Eizo.

We are off topic. I wonder if there is a better thread.

scoobysmak

I am too heavily invested in Nikon to switch and a sponsorship is like me getting a round trip to the moon for free. I do believe the comments are a little harsh on him switching but if it suites his needs better go for it. I know I don't drive the same car as everyone either. I think the sponsorship was like icing on the cake to switch. I doubt I could do any better with Canon than my Nikon gear so for me it wouldn't matter.

I would love to master all types of photography from macro, landscapes, sports, architecture, wildlife...ect ect. I feel photography is similar to golf in this respect, you can work on your driving skills but your putting game might suffer since you didn't practice it as much. Like others I am still shooting a D700, I am waiting for the next big MP full frame to be released. It could be a D4x or maybe a D900, once I see the specs then I might see if the D800"e " is discounted if I don't feel the upgrade would help my photography. The other camera I would purchase is a D400 but that horse has been beaten enough.

If the Canon has better skin tones and even if you can make a Nikon similar in post, if your dealing with thousands of photos why not take the short route and get what is going to save you time in the long run. I am sure his time is worth money to him like it is to me (probably not as much but just giving my opinion).

BigDog

"As someone who now is shooting both e.g. a Canikonian , there are a MILLION things I wish a Canon had from Nikon, but the trick is always knowing what the tool is best at and what's its limitations are and using them accordingly."

Exactly! Couldn't have said it better.

In the video, Scott briefly compared Canon to Apple in terms of user experience. Not that there is a parallel between Canon and Nikon, etc. but the perceived and actual differences (user experience/UI/quality/support) that exists between products can be profound (and drive sales). Think about this in the context of Apple and Microsoft-based computers (desktops, notebooks). Generally speaking, both operating systems are based on an Intel architecture and yet they are very different in ways that significantly MATTER TO THEIR CUSTOMERS. That is more often the case with Apple users. Same can be said about Canon vs. Nikon. The subtle differences found on a spec sheet are amplified depending upon user perception, actual need, and intended use.

No matter, last year I significantly moved up the 'lens' food chain, plus I added a FF body. For the work that I do (and want to do), everything I added served a specific purpose. Bottom line, big $$ on Nikon in 2013.

That said, (and certainly off topic) when it came time to find a small, lightweight travel camera the Nikon-1 was never on my list. Not for a minute mostly because of the small sensor format. Instead I looked closely at Sony, SAMSUNG, Fuji, Olympus, Panny, etc. Where I landed was an entry-level mirror-less from Canon - the EOS-M with two lens. Very low price (because of discontinued product), decent performance and now I have a small cam that I take almost every I go. I didn't 'switch' to Canon but I did make the best possible choice given my requirements at the time.

spraynpray

Interesting post @BigDog, it caused me some introspection. As a result of that, I have to say that I am dispassionate about my computers but passionate about my camera. Hard to understand why exactly - both are tools after all. Perhaps it is because I do not earn a large percentage of my income from my camera so I associate it with pleasure rather than work.

Those who snipe at others because they praise aspects of the competition or slate aspects of Nikon, are well, much akin to rabid dogs really, and certainly a different personality type to me. @Msmoto got it right when she said words to the effect of these criticisms are born out of frustration with our chosen mark rather than any infatuation with the competition.

If/when I feel the need to buy a concealed carry camera, my priority will be durability, weather 'proofness', usability and sensor size. Olympus, Fuji or Sony at the moment perhaps, not Nikon or Canon most likely.

NSXTypeR

Interesting post @BigDog, it caused me some introspection. As a result of that, I have to say that I am dispassionate about my computers but passionate about my camera. Hard to understand why exactly - both are tools after all. Perhaps it is because I do not earn a large percentage of my income from my camera so I associate it with pleasure rather than work.

Those who snipe at others because they praise aspects of the competition or slate aspects of Nikon, are well, much akin to rabid dogs really, and certainly a different personality type to me. @Msmoto got it right when she said words to the effect of these criticisms are born out of frustration with our chosen mark rather than any infatuation with the competition.

If/when I feel the need to buy a concealed carry camera, my priority will be durability, weather 'proofness', usability and sensor size. Olympus, Fuji or Sony at the moment perhaps, not Nikon or Canon most likely.

I'm a bit on the reverse for me- cameras aren't a big deal to me- I prefer Nikon because I'm used to it, but I'm not going to snub you because you're using Canon.

Personally though, I prefer Macs over Windows computers. I've left Windows for so long that going back is going to be difficult for me. The last Windows machine I've used is XP, and I'm comfortable with that. My dad just got a Windows 8 machine and it took me the longest time to figure out how to turn it off. It was even worse to find the native slideshow feature- that took me almost 45 minutes. Some of the things they did made things worse in Windows 8. I feel like they ported the ribbon from Office into their normal applications and it makes finding things worse, especially when it's layered.

But now we're very far off topic.

Msmoto

All of the color talk is of no value to me as I shoot almost all in the worst lighting conditions known to man, i.e., mixed metal halide sources, mixed daylight and tungsten, and sometimes mixes of three or more….so, in post is where the tones are developed.

The reason I shoot Nikon is that is what I started with and once invested I did not see a reason to change. If I had a job, I might think about finding what does the very best job for me and go with that route, but I have no intentions of working…LOL

donaldejose

I have seen too much magenta tone appearing in my skin but I thought it was just my skin! Now I wonder if I would look better shot on a Cannon?

manhattanboy

I have seen too much magenta tone appearing in my skin but I thought it was just my skin! Now I wonder if I would look better shot on a Cannon?

I'll throw in my small experience adjusting images on both systems: adjusting things in post, I frequently add yellow warmth to the Nikon images containing skin tones. To me the RAW images are too blue or cold. When adjusting Canon images, I still add some yellow warmth, but a much smaller amount. However, I like the DR of the Nikon better and do not have to brighten the shadows as much as I do on Canon images, which are more "flat". I am tempted to install the magic lantern software on the Canon, which claims it can now provide more DR than the Nikon D800. IDK if I believe that...need to wait to see images.

donaldejose

Maybe there is some way to set the Auto white balance to move it a step off of magenta and a set to more yellow for improved skin tones?

Or maybe the glass in certain lenses will yield a less magenta and more yellow color for skin tones? I keep reading how certain people feel certain lenses provide different and better colors.

Maybe batch processing can automatically adjust skin tones just a bit?

Benji2505

SK is making a lot of money with Photoshop tutorials, so how realistic is it to complain about the skin tones that come out of the raw files? Beside this shift being minor, no photog that wants to be taken serious delivers a picture without photoshopping it.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I have seen too much magenta tone appearing in my skin but I thought it was just my skin! Now I wonder if I would look better shot on a Cannon?

If you were shot with a Cannon you wold like much worse but if you were shot with a Canon you might have a better chance.

for the skin exposure does anybody use a gray card or expo disk?

Ade

I found that using different RAW processors have a much larger impact on color rendition than any differences between Canon and Nikon.

E.g., look how differently part of this girl's shirt is rendered by default using Lightroom (left) vs. Aperture (right):


Color differences, Lightroom vs. Aperture

That's from the same RAW file using default white balance and process on both.

When I first switched from Aperture to LR, it took me awhile to "adjust" since all the colors seemed "wrong" to me. Sometimes I still prefer how colors are rendered in Aperture vs. how LR renders them.

I use a ColorChecker Passport when I need to have more accurate colors.