Switching brands

Author
Discussion

ManFromDelmonte

Original Poster:

2,742 posts

179 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
I just read this article on PocketLint about a pro changing from Canon (5D2) to Nikon (D810) after 22 years of shooting Canon.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130407-tom-oldham-...

It reads a bit like a Nikon advert but I want to believe he's not been paid to switch.

Has anyone else made a similar switch and how did you get on?


MysteryLemon

4,968 posts

190 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Hmm yeah defo reads like an advert so I didn't bother reading the whole thing. No one needs biased and probably paid for opinions like that.

One point I did pick up on is that he says "The only thing I can do is compare picture quality to what I was using before" and from the article we know he came from a Canon 5d MK2 to a Nikon D810. So he's comparing a camera from 2008 with a camera from 2014 and astonished with the differences? Is he just plain stupid? He could probably have used a Nikon D3300 and felt the same.

Edited by MysteryLemon on Tuesday 2nd September 13:39

nellyleelephant

2,705 posts

233 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
ManFromDelmonte said:
Has anyone else made a similar switch and how did you get on?
It's something I toyed with when the D810 was announced, but after looking into it, I would stand to lose too much on lenses. It's a pity as I like the look of the Nikon 200-400 and it's considerably cheaper than Canons version!

AndWhyNot

2,356 posts

198 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
It's not PR-y enough to have come from Nikon IMO, and he mentions borrowing the 300mm f/2.8 which suggests the other gear is bought/ owned rather than loaned/ given. I also think Pocket Lint is too valuing of its independence to pass off a sales pitch as editorial. If anything it reads to me like the guy has some beef with Canon and this is his way of getting his own back.

photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
The only part of that which really interested me was when he explained to his amazement he could get usable images from iso 2000. I'm pretty sure I can do that with my 1dx and 5diii. Another highlight was the ability to pull back the skies in photoshop, again I'm pretty sure my Canon set up can do that as well. Obviously this is a massive concern to the average gig photographer... I'm willing to be a little wild and say you could actually do all that with a 5dii.

Oh and finally the part where he says he had to learn the controls on the job... Okay, so that's not written to sell the camera. It's not like a working pro might have worked out how he works before going to the job.

ian in lancs

3,769 posts

197 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Recently with a studio shoot where the model was also a photography graduate I shot my Nikon and the equivalent Canon back to back, same settings, lighting and both 70-200. Impossible to tell the results apart. The whole Canik debate is bllx imho and is down to feel / fit in the hands, what you're used to (I can operate my Nikons without looking) but really it's down to whether the picture works not the equipment used to take it. By all means try the other but to swop systems is a huge waste of money. If you're sponsored to switch then fine! Be much better to put the lost money to work in setting up / travelling to the shot!

nellyleelephant

2,705 posts

233 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
ian in lancs said:
Recently with a studio shoot where the model was also a photography graduate I shot my Nikon and the equivalent Canon back to back, same settings, lighting and both 70-200. Impossible to tell the results apart. The whole Canik debate is bllx imho and is down to feel / fit in the hands, what you're used to (I can operate my Nikons without looking) but really it's down to whether the picture works not the equipment used to take it. By all means try the other but to swop systems is a huge waste of money. If you're sponsored to switch then fine! Be much better to put the lost money to work in setting up / travelling to the shot!
With a studio shoot I doubt you would see much difference between a mid range and pro camera. It's high ISO and AF that has come on leaps and bounds, these areas are less critical in a controlled environment.........and there's quite a lot to be said for the Sony sensor fitted to the Nikon D810.....annoyingly.....

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Just been on the road with 7 other very good photographers.

All but 1 shooting Nikon d810 (many had an a7r along too).

Shooting side by side you can not ignore the huge disadvantage of shooting landscape on canon.

The d800 was a game changer, the d810 pushes that on and fixes all the problems, for pj/event shooters canon can easily compete.

But not landscape.

nellyleelephant

2,705 posts

233 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
Just been on the road with 7 other very good photographers.

All but 1 shooting Nikon d810 (many had an a7r along too).

Shooting side by side you can not ignore the huge disadvantage of shooting landscape on canon.

The d800 was a game changer, the d810 pushes that on and fixes all the problems, for pj/event shooters canon can easily compete.

But not landscape.
What were the disadvantages? DR and resolution?

photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
Just been on the road with 7 other very good photographers.

All but 1 shooting Nikon d810 (many had an a7r along too).

Shooting side by side you can not ignore the huge disadvantage of shooting landscape on canon.

The d800 was a game changer, the d810 pushes that on and fixes all the problems, for pj/event shooters canon can easily compete.

But not landscape.
I don't think many people would deny that the d810 is a tool for landscapes. However if you specialise in landscapes there are ever better tools for the job. However part of that is because Nikon have better ultra wide angle zooms.

However if you wanted to do video then I think Canon would have the edge. If you wanted to do sport it would be a close call, but I'm willing to stick my neck out and say Canon has a tiny edge.

I also think that the difference in landscapes are not as great as some people make out (given it's not my area and I've not done a side by side comparison). However how big are you doing to print your images? I've seen some amazing work done with a 5diii, once you go past what that is capable off then you should really be considering medium format anyway. When people talk about bringing back blown skies then all I think about it why I've got a load of less graduated ND filters. With the limited about of landscape stuff I've done the fun in it is taking your time and getting it all right. Not spending time in lightroom bringing it all back.

I think the idea of ditching all your kit would be mental. Especially as Canon have yet to bring out the 5div, which will probably be a marked step up from the 5diii. Admittedly Canon have a problem - they make their own sensors and Sony have stolen the show in that department. However when/if Canon catch up there will be nothing in it again. However you would have spent thousands changing your kit.

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
I work hard to get around the limitations of my sensor!

Blending, filters etc this all adds risk, time at capture and loads more time in post.

Peak light doesn't last long. These guys working without filters can shoot more compositions with better more detailed files.


photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
I work hard to get around the limitations of my sensor!

Blending, filters etc this all adds risk, time at capture and loads more time in post.

Peak light doesn't last long. These guys working without filters can shoot more compositions with better more detailed files.
This isn't my area so forgive me if I'm being daft. But how does a graduated ND filter either take any real amount of time either at the action stage, or at all in post and whats the risk? Surely the Nikon kids are all using some form of filters anyway, like a CP so they have to compose that.

I honestly think if you got an amazing landscape photographer and gave him both a 5diii and a d810 with the same lens (lets use a zeiss as an example) then you would get brilliant shots from both cameras. Printing at sizes which any normal person prints I'm convinced you would not be able to tell the difference.


Edited by photosnob on Tuesday 2nd September 21:10

nellyleelephant

2,705 posts

233 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
I'm guessing that the higher dynamic range lets you not worry about ND grads or blending as much. I'm no expert on filters, but I don't think that a circular polariser will give you much in the golden hour (may be wrong though)

photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
nellyleelephant said:
I'm guessing that the higher dynamic range lets you not worry about ND grads or blending as much. I'm no expert on filters, but I don't think that a circular polariser will give you much in the golden hour (may be wrong though)
I've no idea. I've got one and have used it a couple of times, after it cost me a small fortune from Lee.

Again I'll wait to see the differences - Canon's 5diii have produced amazing images. When it gets to the point where you can tell the difference between the best landscape photographer printed in normal sizes I'll take note. But I don't think it's there yet.

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
The Nikon shooters were not using filters at all.

The risks are more optical surfaces, dirt, flare, loss of resolution, bad grad placement, especially with typical mountain scenes often needing a safety shot, yet more files and processing.

I'm not a get it right in camera kind of shooter but would love to reduce that risk.

It's also time getting the right strength grad and placing it sometimes every frame, time these guys can use to work on compositions

Pickled

2,051 posts

142 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
I seem to recall somewhere in my grey matter, that Nikon Pro Service did some cracking deals in taking Canon equipment in PX for Nikon gear, I believe it was when either the D3 or D3s came out and they wanted to grab a big slice of the sports market (Beijing Olympics rings a bell) They subsequently had all the Canon gear crushed!

As had been said in most instances the differences are negligible, but each brand has its strengths, Nikon has the high ISO upper hand and Canon has a massive following in film making circles. Don't think i could ever change systems, my mate has a 5DII and i find it such a faff to change anything (I even struggle to turn it on hehe) whereas on my D3 I can change everything without even having to give it second thought, but that doesn't mean I think Nikon is better than Canon. The only thing I don't like with my D3, and has been remedied in newer models, is the high base ISO of 200, Grays have some nicely priced D800's in stock that I might treat myself to.

Edited by Pickled on Tuesday 2nd September 23:27

Elderly

3,486 posts

237 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
Shooting side by side you can not ignore the huge disadvantage of shooting landscape on canon.

Looking here: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Landscape
I was amazed to see that the best Canon I spotted on the list
comes a lowly 101st when it comes to dynamic range.

cornet

1,469 posts

157 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
The thing is there are lots of reasons why people switch brands or start using a new system.

The majority are probably switching because of increased dynamic range, better ISO performance thinking that it will improve their pictures. The reality is that for most people it won't. Some people might get improved pictures because it gives them more room for error and only a minority will really be able to exploit the true advantages.

More interesting to me is the wave of people moving from Nikon/Canon to the Fuji X series. From a purely technical specification point of view these people could be seen as "downgrading". Smaller sensor, lower DR, worse ISO performance etc...

Are they producing worse pictures because of this downgrade ? I very much doubt it in most cases. Not because they can't exploit the full potential of their Nikon D810 or whatever, more that they can accept the restrictions and instead look for other photos they might not have taken. There is also the size aspect which means you're more likely to carry them and, if you like street photography or people, they are less threatening to the subject.

It's really easy to blame your kit and go hunting for that elusive upgrade. Will your photos be better if you find it: probably. Will it make you a better photographer: probably not.






nellyleelephant

2,705 posts

233 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
cornet said:
It's really easy to blame your kit and go hunting for that elusive upgrade. Will your photos be better if you find it: probably. Will it make you a better photographer: probably not.
.....unless there is a clear advantage, such as Nikons 200-400 which costs half as much as the Canon version!

ukaskew

10,642 posts

220 months

Thursday 4th September 2014
quotequote all
cornet said:
More interesting to me is the wave of people moving from Nikon/Canon to the Fuji X series. From a purely technical specification point of view these people could be seen as "downgrading". Smaller sensor, lower DR, worse ISO performance etc...
The best camera is the one that's with you. Lots of movement towards M4/3, Fuji X etc for this very reason.

I would guess the vast majority of DSLR owners these days shoot JPEG and barely stretch their camera, for those people a Fuji X is by far the better choice in my opinion, the JPEGs blow anything CaNikon can do with JPEGs out of the water, and the size means they are more likely to take it with them anywhere.

So many reasons for switching though, personally the single biggest factor for my move to the Sony a7 is because I actually prefer an EVF and tilting screen (without the painful DSLR LiveView implementation of this), far from being a gimmick it's helped my composition immensely by helping me to easily shoot at very low or odd angles, I wouldn't be without it now.