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.
D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
He can also write Canon books too now.
Fortunately I've got a long way to go before my creative talents are limited by my choice of camera vendors.
"Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
We are off topic. I wonder if there is a better thread.
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).
Exactly! Couldn't have said it better.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
for the skin exposure does anybody use a gray card or expo disk?
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.