Swapping sides

A

AliB

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,762
Edit My Images
No
Not blooming likely!

I have absolutely nothing against Nikon, Sony or Olympus but all this talk of people selling up thousands of pounds of gear and changing manufacturer is silly!

If Jeff Ascough, Yervant, Mark Cleghorn and Damien Lovegrove can "get by" on Canon gear I think I'll be sticking with it.

Might seem like a cheeky answer but until you are knocking the spots off what these guys do and can't squeeze anything else from the equipment then, to me, all this "I must defect to Nikon" is just gear envy and sheep mentality. How many people here genuinely need the extended ISO? I've not yet come across a situation where the use of a fast lens could not get the job done. When I do, I'll be the first in the queue.

If you like Nikon/Sony/Olympus go and buy it. But learning how to get the best out of the camera is always a much better investment.

Canon brought out the 5DII, have I rushed out to get it? No. Because I still have a way to go with the kit that I DO have before I dash off to Calumet begging them to relieve me of yet more money. I will upgrade when the cost vs benefit is right.

It's the age old disease of the gear junkie though........"If only I had........it would make my pictures better"

Right, rant over, I'm off to see how much I can get a 35mm f1.4L for!
:naughty:
 
I agree with you Ali, I should add it is totally irrelevant to me what anybody else chooses to take their photographs with.

As I said on another post regarding this, these things are a tool, which each individual prefers to use is their choice, and should be based on what feels best for them.
 
Martyn... said:
As I said on another post regarding this, these things are a tool, which each individual prefers to use is their choice, and should be based on what feels best for them.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The skill is with the photographer, not the camera. Canon and Nikon have little to choose between them now, and so people should use what they feel the most comfortable with unless there is a real need for a particular feature.
However, more often than not, "want" is misinterpreted as "need".
 
All well and good, but if people did not upgrade to the latest kit,where would that leave us lot who rely on cheaper second hand stuff......;)

Seriously, I agree with you completely.

I want a D700,do I need one?...No.
 
Well said. The opinions of two or three vociferous people on this forum are hardly evidence that Nikon is a better option than any other manufacturer. I wonder why people have to parade their great internal struggle on the type of camera they use in front of the rest of us, most of whom probably don't care what these odd individuals are doing.
 
Well said Alison. Couldn't agree more...

A guy I know has recently "upgraded" a 1DsII to a 5DII and is now unhappy with the autofocus. Shouldn't he have worked it out before? I'd like to own a 1DsIII, but are 4mexapixels, 14bit colour, a couple of hundred grammes lighter, longer battery life, image "deeper" buffer and 1 extra frame per second worth the £1500 that it would cost to even change to a second hand 1DsIII? Not to me.

I have seriously thought before about the move to Nikon but for one reason only. And that is the 200-400 f/4 zoom that Canon have no equivalent of. But, that alone is not enough to justify the vast expense to replicate the rest of my kit. So, I'll sit and hope that Canon do make a "new" lens rather than just enhance existing products.

I still find it interesting that the D3, when tested by DxO Mark offers less than 2/3 stop improvement in high ISO noise than my old 1DsII when printed at 12x8. Yes, we spend a lot of money on getting extra light in but 0.6 stops feels marginal to me.

Very few of these new features are truly revolutionary. What we see is a number of relatively small, incremental changes that the manufacturers try and convince us are enough to upgrade.

I personally hope the end of the "arms race" is approaching and we can get back to being photographers. Back to the days when professional products had 8+ year life cycles rather than 2.

It is interesting to note that a 1V amortised over an 8 year life would cost a photographer £200 or so per year. A 1Ds Mark III will cost nearly £2000 per year over a 3 year life. Has the world gone mad?

Paul
 
I'm not getting at anyone at all with that post Russell, just that I keep seeing...."should I do it too" posts cropping up.

Hammer the heck out of what you have got first and when you are hitting performance problems then you know you need to make that investment. Until then, pay for training, honestly, it's a much better investment.
 
Syx said:
Absolutely. The skill is with the photographer, not the camera. Canon and Nikon have little to choose between them now, and so people should use what they feel the most comfortable with unless there is a real need for a particular feature.
However, more often than not, "want" is misinterpreted as "need".
Click to expand...

Whilst I completely agree with you how about a slightly different thought?

Will a "want" that is satisfied, subconsciously relax the photographer thus allowing them to produce better work. They therefore think the need was fulfilled and go happily on their way thinking the camera has helped without realising the truth.
 
grumpybadger said:
It is interesting to note that a 1V amortised over an 8 year life would cost a photographer £200 or so per year. A 1Ds Mark III will cost nearly £2000 per year over a 3 year life. Has the world gone mad?

Paul
Click to expand...

Yes. :clap:

My 30 year old hasselblad will still knock the spots off most DSLR's in a studio (or it will do when I get it back from it's service) And until recently Jeff Ascough still shot with Leica M6's!

Some of my all time favourite images come from the 70's and were shot on film using Olympus OM1's and Rollies. Bob Carlos Carke and David Bailey managed just fine without 54 autofocus sensors. :bang:
 
PsiFox said:
Whilst I completely agree with you how about a slightly different thought?

Will a "want" that is satisfied, subconsciously relax the photographer thus allowing them to produce better work. They therefore think the need was fulfilled and go happily on their way thinking the camera has helped without realising the truth.
Click to expand...

That's what I term delusion though. :naughty:
 
I think I largely agree with your thinking Ali.

I've got a fair amount of cash invested in Canon at the moment, so I can't see myself swapping in the near or even far distant future. I've never even pressed the shutter button of a Nikon in anger, so how would I know if I'd get on any better with it?

I entirely agree that almost any photographer will benefit far more by learning to use the kit that s/he already has than by selling up and jumping ship.

But...there's just one nagging doubt in my mind.

Until the advent of digital, I used Contax film cameras. Now if anyone has ever used Contax gear they might know what I mean, but that was truly wonderful equipment. It may be that it actually shaped the way I worked as a photographer, but there was nothing more than a mid-range Contax film body that could have improved the way I worked.

The only thing that I prefer over Contax on my Canons is the lens release button!

And sometimes I just wonder if Nikon is closer to the Contax way of doing things than Canon is.
 
Ali,

I was lucky enough to sit down and chat with Damien last week. Top bloke, top photographer. He lives near me and is a very very clever guy who shoots 90% of his work on P mode. He calls it 'P for professional'....

A true expert with light.

I do however disagree with both cameras being the same. All cameras render slightly differently. If you want factual biting sharp photos go Nikon, if you want a slightly fuller less sharp photo go Canon. The differences are there, just subtle.

I concur however and the recent increases should allow people to take stock and shoot more.

Pete.
 
To be honest, I really don't see much of a difference in image quality between both manufacturers when you compare similar bodies both Canon and Nikon are (and always have been really) at the top of their game. I've found that it's simply a case of which ergonomics you prefer, I started off with Nikon film bodies and since then have progressed on to their digital ones. I'm certain Canon bodies could do just as well but I would be completely lost as to where everything was.
 
grumpybadger said:
I still find it interesting that the D3, when tested by DxO Mark offers less than 2/3 stop improvement in high ISO noise than my old 1DsII when printed at 12x8. Yes, we spend a lot of money on getting extra light in but 0.6 stops feels marginal to me.

I doubt the validity of those tests on two counts, firstly they're performed without a lens and how many photographers shoot without lenses? Secondly, noise takes many forms and the presence of noise if not necessarily a bad thing, it's the quality of the noise that makes a difference.


It is interesting to note that a 1V amortised over an 8 year life would cost a photographer £200 or so per year. A 1Ds Mark III will cost nearly £2000 per year over a 3 year life. Has the world gone mad?
Click to expand...

That's only looking at the Cap Ex model, what about Op Ex which with digital is far less than with film?
Click to expand...
 
I went from Canon to Nikon, not because anyone told me to or because i thought any brand was better. I summed up my options. Got all the literature and delved thoroughly into forums such as this. I was using a 5D and loved the images it produced, but because i travel alot, usually to Africa, i found that i was fighting with the elements to keep the camera working in such dusty conditions.
Therefore i decided i wanted a pro body, mainly for the ruggedness. I tried all the canon offerings, 5D mkII, 1d Mk III and 1ds MkIII. I wasn't too sure about the 5D MkII, the 1D MkIII wasn't full frame and the 1Ds MkIII was too expensive. I then tried the D3 and it was exactly what i was after.

I don't see the reasoning behind changing for the sake of changing, but i also don't see the point of sticking with a brand just because, especially if another brand offers something better suites my needs.
 
DiddyDave said:
AliB

Come out of the closet dear - it's obvious you're inwardly desperate to change to Nikon gear really, and just hoping to convince yourself & your purse NOT to :shake:

:D

DD
Click to expand...

How do you know I keep all my gear in a closet? have you been looking again?......:naughty:
 
daz103 said:
I don't see the reasoning behind changing for the sake of changing, but i also don't see the point of sticking with a brand just because, especially if another brand offers something better suites my needs.
Click to expand...

Absolutley the right decision for you and a very valid one too. If I were buying into a system again right now I'd be mad NOT to try the D3.

My post was more about the number of "should I do it too" posts I've seen here recently. :cuckoo:
 
My interest is military aviation photography, and I have seen many pics taken with Nikon gear that offers the sharpness that I strive for, and also from Canon.

I have a 40D, on which I use a 100-400mm lens, and on friday, I took a pic that I am really happy with, in terms of light etc:

092702_2441.jpg


Yes, I could spend fortunes, but I still have so much to learn, but if the equipment I am using can give me a pic like above, with which I am happy, then how good could they be once I really learn what I am doing?

Can't see me changing anything just yet...
 
There is rarely any point in changing, or even 'upgrading' IMO these days

All modern digis are somewhere between good and great, and only those wishing to enter competitions with big prints or as Pros who need to print big will ever really notice the differences; and then again largely only if you shoot/print both side by side

I still have some great A3 shots from my 6mp D100 of 5 actual years ago and 3 light-years in technological terms

A pal of mine recently came into some money - he has an extensive 2 yr old Olympus kit - and his question was should he sell it all and buy a similar D3 based kit (around £8,000 I'm guessing)

After a brief chat about what he likes to shoot and what he does with the images, he agreed with my recommendation...

To spend that £8k on a couple of overseas holidays and as many weekends away as he could with his wife to actually take some sodding photos!

And I'm glad to say he's done just that (and I'm in favour with his wife now too :))

DD
 
Couldn't agree more Dave. I am currently in the same phase of spending money on the opportunities to take pictures. Wildlife and nature tends to require travel and travel is expensive. However, I now have stable kit that I can drive blindfolded and know all the subtleties of, which means when the opportunities do arise, I stand a much better chance of grabbing them!
 
I figured I'd save time writing a lot and get right to the point :) Oh and I'm hardly the most respected pro. Forum villian remember :)
 
grumpybadger said:
Hmmm, another valuable contribution from TP's most respected pro...
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:

I think he's back to stalking my posts just for dramatic effect :D

Sort of chap who needs to buy ever sharper knives so he can cook better - he thinks

:D

DD
 
grumpybadger said:
Couldn't agree more Dave. I am currently in the same phase of spending money on the opportunities to take pictures. Wildlife and nature tends to require travel and travel is expensive. However, I now have stable kit that I can drive blindfolded and know all the subtleties of, which means when the opportunities do arise, I stand a much better chance of grabbing them!
Click to expand...

I would agree with you completely. I recently went to China armed only with a G10. I am more than happy with a number of the images I captured.
 
I switched - once to get FF with the 5D and then back to Nikon for the D3. The differences between the 5D and D3 made it very worthwhile. If you've used both you'll know why. There are differences that absolutely made a difference on both occasions, no question whatsoever.

The best example of why is was worthwhile getting the D3's - 29th November 2008, Windsor. 12th Century church, bride comes in to candlelight. To get 1/125s at f1.6 I needed ISO10,000. Without my D3 I'd have shut up shop for the ceremony. As it was I didn't have to and there are no light conditions that I fear now. The camera doesn't get in the way and that's critical.

On both occasions I bought mainly used lenses and lost nothing.

Would I recommend someone switch as a professional? Yes, as long as you can identify why and it can work financially. If you can't identify why you're doing it beyond a 'scratch an itch' then don't bother.
 
Radiohead said:
I switched - once to get FF with the 5D and then back to Nikon for the D3. The differences between the 5D and D3 made it very worthwhile. If you've used both you'll know why. There are differences that absolutely made a difference on both occasions, no question whatsoever.

The best example of why is was worthwhile getting the D3's - 29th November 2008, Windsor. 12th Century church, bride comes in to candlelight. To get 1/125s at f1.6 I needed ISO10,000. Without my D3 I'd have shut up shop for the ceremony. As it was I didn't have to and there are no light conditions that I fear now. The camera doesn't get in the way and that's critical.

On both occasions I bought mainly used lenses and lost nothing.

Would I recommend someone switch as a professional? Yes, as long as you can identify why and it can work financially. If you can't identify why you're doing it beyond a 'scratch an itch' then don't bother.
Click to expand...

I've looked at the D3 and the ISO performance is not that far away from what I have already. The 5D is good up to ISO1600 and the 1Ds autofocus means I can still use it beyond that so, for me, the D3 does not have anything that would make me want to change, plus the resolution is not comparable to the 1Ds.

And that brings me onto your other point, I can't see why it would work for me financially, but then there are others who will apparently consider changing dependant on which way the wind is blowing!

And if I really want high ISO I'll get a film camera and bang some ISO3200 film through it and get some real grain :D
 
AliB said:
I've looked at the D3 and the ISO performance is not that far away from what I have already. The 5D is good up to ISO1600 and the 1Ds autofocus means I can still use it beyond that so, for me, the D3 does not have anything that would make me want to change, plus the resolution is not comparable to the 1Ds.
Click to expand...

If I'd had a 1Ds or 1D then I wouldn't have switched back. But, at that time the 1Ds was £4500 and the 1D III 1.3x crop, so that ruled both out for me (with 2 D3's costing not far off a single 1Ds III). The 5D is a focus and recompose camera with mirror blackout and shutter lag that bothered me though, let alone factors like the battery life, dual CF cards, 100% VF and so on.

So it comes down to the only thing that matters - what is right for you. What anyone else does is irrelevant as long as your move makes sense.

I'll say one thing though - with the kit I have now there's nothing I'd move to. It's a wonderful feeling to be completely happy with my kit.
 
Radiohead said:
So it comes down to the only thing that matters - what is right for you. What anyone else does is irrelevant as long as your move makes sense.

I'll say one thing though - with the kit I have now there's nothing I'd move to. It's a wonderful feeling to be completely happy with my kit.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

(And I still maintain that I really do NEED my Hasselblad :D)
 
AliB said:
:thumbs:

(And I still maintain that I really do NEED my Hasselblad :D)
Click to expand...

Of course you do, you can't possibly be a real photographer if you can't shoot a roll of film. :D

I'd swap any bit of my kit in a blink if I could prove that the swap would directly generate higher earnings. There are bits of stuff I have that I like but I can't afford to have any loyalty to something as meaningles as a brand.

Having said that, I think the most modern thing I have at the mo is the 5D Mk1 and I'm as happy with the diversity I can cover now as I've ever been. :)
 
dazzajl said:
Of course you do, you can't possibly be a real photographer if you can't shoot a roll of film. :D

There are bits of stuff I have that I like but I can't afford to have any loyalty to something as meaningles as a brand.
Click to expand...

That's what I was telling myself very loudly as I traded in my beloved Mercedes last week! ouch! :'(

And the hassy goes in tomorrow for servicing and new light seals......

Oh well, I'll just have to put up with the Mamiya :)
 
See, now I feel bad becasue I was responsible for one of the umpteen posts asking this question. Thankfully, on a positive note, in the end I realised that what you say is true - I can still learn a lot more on my current set-up and it would have been pure gear-envy driven, so I went and added my first L lens to my kit bag instead.

It was cheaper and will most likely give me a great return in terms of IQ while I work up to needing an upgrade. :thumbs:
 
I've always wondered why Pros switch between Nikon and Canon but I think Ali hit the nail on the head when she said it comes down to the cost vs reward. After all a camera is just a tool and if you see a new tool that suits your trade better you'll swap provided there is a return on the investment.

For instance, if I wanted to move into 360 degree product photography there are a number of automated systems on the market but all the ones I've seen only work with Canon systems at the moment. So to enter that field I would either need to switch systems or get a dedicated camera for that.

However, if people want to swap systems simply to fulfil their gadget needs then I think that's up to them. Their money, their choice what they do with it. One thing you can be sure of I would swap to Canon in a second but it would take a big reason for me to do so.
 
Don't feel bad kh 42!

I'm just pointing out the blooming obvious, for which I have a certain talent ;) :D

Good blog too Guy.

Of course it's up to them to fulfil their gadget needs Simon, just that I'm seeing a lot of "Should I?" posts. Well if you don't know then you don't need is my point. :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top