Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 20 Jan 2014 (Monday) 14:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Scott Kelby Explains Why He Switched to Canon

 
Mark ­ II
Goldmember
Avatar
2,153 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Texas
     
Jan 22, 2014 09:15 |  #136

umphotography wrote in post #16623359 (external link)
1Dx was and is a game changer camera.

I agree but, at what point did you accept this? I remember you posting over & over about the 1DX not being worth the $$$ and the 5DMK3 being just as good of a tool. :confused:

Public opinion is a mofo, huh? :lol:

Just pointing out that maybe we should all hold our opinions about new gear for at least a year after introduction.


1DX7D - 40D IR converted Sony RX100,
Canon 85 L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 24-105L, 16-35mm f/2.8 II L, 100L & 60mm Macro , Fisheye EF 15mm f2.8, Tokina 10-17

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
xchangx
Senior Member
507 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: Mobile, AL
     
Jan 22, 2014 09:35 |  #137

It's funny... I used to be all over the technical aspects of photography. To quote the late Mullet, "Quit yer bitchin and go take some pictures!"

That said, I shoot Nikon (started out with Canon). All cameras (D3s/D4/1dMK4/1Dx) are excellent cameras and take fine pictures. At any game I've been to you will see plenty of each being used at the top level of competition.

As for Kelby's comments in the past, I've moved on and now freelance for one of the largest media agencies on the world, so we'll leave it at that.


Nikon D4s / 2x D3s / D3 / 17-35 2.8 / 70-200 2.8 / 600 f4
Freelance sports photographer for Getty Images Sports, Entertainment and News
Freelance sports photographer for Sports Illustrated
My Images with Getty (external link)
My Sportsshooter Page (external link)
My Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thomas ­ Campbell
Goldmember
Avatar
2,105 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Kingwood, TX
     
Jan 22, 2014 09:56 |  #138

Mark II wrote in post #16626802 (external link)
I agree but, at what point did you accept this? I remember you posting over & over about the 1DX not being worth the $$$ and the 5DMK3 being just as good of a tool. :confused:

Public opinion is a mofo, huh? :lol:

Just pointing out that maybe we should all hold our opinions about new gear for at least a year after introduction.

I still think that unless you need the frame rate, the 5D3 is the way to go. Not enough other reasons to upgrade.


Houston Wedding Photographer (external link)
Houston Sports Photographer (external link)
Current Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gregg.Siam
Goldmember
Avatar
2,383 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Bangkok
     
Jan 22, 2014 10:02 |  #139

jdizzle wrote in post #16624900 (external link)
I wish Scott Kelby all the best. When he realizes that Canon sensors lack DR, he'll be knocking back on Nikon's door. ;):lol:

DR is over-rated in most cases. If 12 stops isn't enough, he needs to read his own books on how to properly expose a subject, or install magic lantern and get the same 14 stops as Nikon.


5D MKIII | 24-105mm f/4 L| 50mm f/1.8 | 600EX-RT [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=bl​ue][FONT="]|
∞ 500px (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gregg.Siam
Goldmember
Avatar
2,383 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Bangkok
     
Jan 22, 2014 10:16 |  #140

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16623817 (external link)
What is he supposed to say? The whole point in making that video is to NOT come off like a corporate shill. But instead he comes off like someone trying really hard not to come off like a corporate shill.

What if Canon says "Look, we give you $50k/year to just mention our stuff along side Nikon. So you say 'Hey, this is a portrait, so I use a D800, but a 5D3 is also a good choice.' But we also want you to try out all our gear. If you will switch and always use our gear in all your programs and videos, we will give you $150k/year and make you part of our Explorers of Light program" What do you think he would say?

You are making an assumption, which was what my post was about. Why are we assuming it was about money? Why couldn't he make a choice based on what camera he liked and the reasons for it? It doesn't have to come from money nor does he have to create a video convincing people he is not a shill if they truly were his reasons for switching.

I highly doubt they gave him 150k to switch. The amount they would give him in cash or gear is not going to be fairly small compared to his business earnings, so it comes down to what he actually wants to shoot with.


5D MKIII | 24-105mm f/4 L| 50mm f/1.8 | 600EX-RT [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=bl​ue][FONT="]|
∞ 500px (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bianchi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,115 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7113
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
Jan 22, 2014 10:37 |  #141

I think this thread should be forwarded to Mr Kelby, he will probably get a kick out of it. If he decides to read it..


My Gear flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,417 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 465
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Jan 22, 2014 10:40 |  #142

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #16626903 (external link)
DR is over-rated in most cases. If 12 stops isn't enough, he needs to read his own books on how to properly expose a subject, or install magic lantern and get the same 14 stops as Nikon.

Large low-ISO DR is crucial for some types of shooting (landscape), but less critical in others (studio - where you have complete control of the lighting).

Please don't use the tired "learn to expose properly" mantra - that's like telling someone with a slow AF system they should learn to press the shutter button faster. If a scene greatly exceeds the DR capability of the sensor then no single exposure (regardless of the camera settings or experience of the shooter) is going to capture it.

IRC The dual ISO technique in Magic Lantern (which is a genius piece of reverse engineering and implementation by the ML guys BTW) has a negative effect on your vertical resolution - which is likely irrelevant for video (given the sensor image is downsampled) but affects one of the rather important criteria for landscape shooters: resolution.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jocau
Goldmember
Avatar
1,838 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 338
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Belgium
     
Jan 22, 2014 10:53 |  #143

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16626750 (external link)
Seriously, try them in the D3 or D4. I totally understand that the non-crosstypes don't work well in a rebel or even in cameras like the 5D or 5D2, but every point works on the pro Nikon cameras how you would expect a focus point to work. I've got about 100k frames under my belt with the D3, D3s, D800 and D4, which is a pretty good sample size. The focus points work really well.

A non-crosstype AF point will only detect contrast patterns in one direction. That's a fact, just like a circle will always be round. Because of this there are situations where non-crosstype AF points will fail to achieve focus while crosstype AF points won't. I agree that there can be a difference between non-crosstype AF points in consumer cameras vs non-crosstype AF points in pro cameras. But you can never outrun the facts.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16626750 (external link)
Gotcha. I don't care. I never considered buying it when I was Canon and that wouldn't sway me from one camera company to another. I used the 35 1.4 with Canon and use the 35 1.4 with Nikon. Absolutely workhorse lens. And the Nikon one is about a 10-year newer design and a better lens.

The EF 35mm F/2 IS USM would allow me to take indoor shots of static objects during the evening with enough DOF and without using a tripod or (very) high ISO. That's why I like the concept of adding IS to wide-angle primes.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16626750 (external link)
Absolutely true. But this is also a niche market lens. Used by very few people. I have a friend that was Nikon that bought a 5D and the MPE 65 because he mainly shot macros. But it is a very small niche. You can get 5x magnification with a regular macro lens with extension tubes.


It is indeed no lens for someone who is just starting with macro photography (or you need a lot of patience/determination​). But those >500mm lenses are also designed for a niche market in my opinion (especially when you look at the price). But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be produced. More (quality) lenses = more choice = more chance you'll find something that fits you. As for extension tubes. It's a hassle and you need extra storage space. Plus you can also add them to the MP-E 65mm F/2.8 I believe, so you'll get even more than 5x magnification.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16626750 (external link)
Glad you liked it. I shoot professionally and my choices to switch are based on business. The pancake is a cheap gimmick lens and compared to the L lenses I used, not exactly stellar. It is not a lens that professionals are going to be shooting with and if you aren't a professional, you can't really justify a switch other than wanting new toys.

I agree that it's not a lens designed for professionals, but its optics are better than some of the L lenses. When image quality is the only thing that matters, the EF 40mm F/2.8 STM can easily stand next to various L lenses.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16626750 (external link)
Because I am a professional shooter, I judged each company on the professional lenses, not their toy or fun lenses. While Nikon doesn't have a MP-E65, not a lot of professionals make a living with that. Nikon has the 14-24 2.8 and Canon doesn't. Nikon has a 16-35 with VR and Canon doesn't. Nikon's professional zooms tend to be as good or better and cheaper. The 28-300 range is fantastic when strobing. Especially with basketball or studio strobing. The Canon one is much heavier and $1400 more expensive, while the Nikon is newer, lighter, sharper and cheaper. The Canon 200-400 is a sharper lens than the Nikon, but for the price difference? It is about double the price. Anecdotal evidence, but my only friend with the Canon 200-400 has already had to send his in twice for AF repairs.

The EF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II USM is a bit better than the Nikon equivalent (check dpreview). So "tend to be as good or better" is definitely not always true. As for the Nikon 14-24. This lens will mostly be used for landscape photography. You don't really need AF for that so you can easily buy an adapter and put it on a Canon body. It doesn't work the other way around as far as I've heard.

I don't always get your way of thinking. When something from Nikon is superior (e.g. the Sony Exmor sensor they are using), you praise it because image quality is all that matters in the end. When something from Canon is better (e.g. the new 200-400 or the MP-E 65mm F/2.8) you find an excuse (e.g. too expensive, niche market etc).

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16626750 (external link)
I am a Kelvin shooter. I can change Kelvin on the back of my Nikon without looking or taking the camera from my face. I had to go into menus to change the Kelvin on a Canon camera.

I exclusively shoot in RAW, so it doesn't matter to me.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16626750 (external link)
I've shot professional for nearly a decade. Only form of income. You should go back to thinking that way because it is absolutely 100% true. The things that matter most are the lens and the sensor. Nikon beats Canon every time on the sensor. In the same situation, a Nikon image will be superior to the Canon, though depending on the situation it may not be all the noticeable.

And Canon hits the wall of not being able to capture something before Nikon does, which is a large part of why I switched. I especially dodge and burn a lot and the dynamic range and how Nikon renders dodging is a very important part of the image quality.

It's true that Canon hits the wall earlier (especially regarding dynamic range at ISO100). But not everyone will experience that wall because of various reasons. Also when using high ISO Canon often beats Nikon when it comes down to dynamic range (although the difference isn't as big as the difference at ISO100).

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16626750 (external link)
As do I, which is why I chose Nikon - because my experience with the top of the line cameras is that Nikon does a better job in locking and keeping focus.

Eh, your experience with the 1DX/5D3/D4/D800 being what? I've got over 100k frames shot with each system and I disagree with your statement.

I'm a test engineer (IT related) so I also like to search for the limits of a device. I have had success in letting a D800 fail to achieve focus with one of the outer AF points. I've also achieved this with e.g. my 550D or the 6D while a 60D did achieve focus with one of the outer AF points in the same situation. That's not a shame, it's just the nature of the beast. Like I said before, just like a circle is round, a non-crosstype AF point only detects contrast patterns in one direction. Wrong direction = no AF lock. If my 550D had crosstype AF points at the sides, I would probably hardly ever use my center AF point. So yes, I find the AF system in the 5D3/1DX superior to any AF system that Nikon currently has to offer.


550D | EF-S 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 IS | EF 50mm F/1.8 II | EF 70-200mm F/4L IS | Speedlite 580EX II | LumoPro LP180 | Gitzo GT3541XLS | Arca-Swiss Monoball Z1 SP | ONA Bowery (black, non-leather) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shedberg
Goldmember
Avatar
1,122 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Terrace, B.C. Canada
     
Jan 22, 2014 10:57 |  #144

Man, those Nikon shooters sure do get defensive when someone switches to Canon... LOL!


My Flickr Page (external link)
6D / 7D / 16-35 II / 35 2.0 IS / 60 macro / 85 1.8 / 135 2 / 100-400 / 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aswald
Goldmember
1,162 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Oct 2013
Location: London, Paris, NY
     
Jan 22, 2014 11:03 |  #145

It goes both ways.

I know a pro who decided to switch to a fully sponsored Canon from Nikon had to agree to a caveat which was to let Canon "dispose" of his entire Nikon collection.

By "dispose", they meant burn. Which they did.

The topic of switching, to me, remains a highly sensitive subject.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Headshotzx
Goldmember
Avatar
4,488 posts
Likes: 129
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Singapore
     
Jan 22, 2014 11:08 |  #146

Holy crap, 10 pages just because a more famous photographer / teacher swapped camera brands? It's almost like a Mac vs PC thing again.


Zexun | Flickr (external link) | YouTube (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
taemo
Goldmember
1,243 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
     
Jan 22, 2014 11:21 as a reply to  @ Headshotzx's post |  #147

I keep hearing Scott Lelby here and there but his style never piqued my interest

Listening to the talk show, I understand his reasoning on going Canon.
He's not saying that Canon is the best, just that the body and design just works well for him.


earldieta.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - tumblr (external link) - gear/feedback
the spirit is willing but the body is sore and squishy
4 digital cameras | 14 film cameras

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
magwai
Goldmember
1,094 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Guildford, UK
     
Jan 22, 2014 11:36 |  #148

this is hilarious.

imo there is no way that is Scott Kelby, people impersonate celebs all the time on message boards i have seen it many times over my decades of using various techs back to usenet.

don't get me wrong it would be awesome if scott kelby would post here i think he is great.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thomas ­ Campbell
Goldmember
Avatar
2,105 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Kingwood, TX
     
Jan 22, 2014 13:23 |  #149

jocau wrote in post #16627020 (external link)
A non-crosstype AF point will only detect contrast patterns in one direction. That's a fact, just like a circle will always be round. Because of this there are situations where non-crosstype AF points will fail to achieve focus while crosstype AF points won't. I agree that there can be a difference between non-crosstype AF points in consumer cameras vs non-crosstype AF points in pro cameras. But you can never outrun the facts.

And the facts are also that not all non-cross type AF points are created equal. Which is why they work so poorly on cameras like the 5D2 and so well on the D700 or D3s. Can't change it.

The EF 35mm F/2 IS USM would allow me to take indoor shots of static objects during the evening with enough DOF and without using a tripod or (very) high ISO. That's why I like the concept of adding IS to wide-angle primes.

That is a situation I have never found myself. When I take indoor shots, I will light it more often than not, because I find that ambient light indoors is rarely what I would consider ideal.

It is indeed no lens for someone who is just starting with macro photography (or you need a lot of patience/determination​). But those >500mm lenses are also designed for a niche market in my opinion (especially when you look at the price). But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be produced. More (quality) lenses = more choice = more chance you'll find something that fits you. As for extension tubes. It's a hassle and you need extra storage space. Plus you can also add them to the MP-E 65mm F/2.8 I believe, so you'll get even more than 5x magnification.

If you are doing scientific macro work, the MPE is pretty much your best choice.

I made my choice based on business and what would work best, and niche lenses that I would never use or entry level lenses that I would never use from either manufacturer never came into play for me. I know the Canon EF-S 17-55 is great and L quality, but I never really cared because I am not really a crop shooter. I think that Nikon has something similar, but I don't know a damn thing about DX lenses, because it isn't relevant to me shooting professionally.

I care about what professional lenses are available, what the performance of those lenses are and the cost of those lenses. I think Nikon fits my needs better with that criteria, with the exception of the 135L.

Canon also has a great 17mm TS-E, but I never looked into it and wouldn't have had a use for it. If I was an architectural photographer, obviously, that would be different.

The EF 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II USM is a bit better than the Nikon equivalent (check dpreview). So "tend to be as good or better" is definitely not always true.

DXO has the Nikon version slightly higher. (external link) In any event, they are very close.

As for the Nikon 14-24. This lens will mostly be used for landscape photography. You don't really need AF for that so you can easily buy an adapter and put it on a Canon body. It doesn't work the other way around as far as I've heard.

Most Nikon wedding photographers I know use this lens religiously. Most like to get right into the action on the dance floor and get some cool perspectives. A lot of people use it for wide and environmental portraits as well. That adapter would prevent you from having AF. And unlike the MPE or the 17 TSE, this one isn't really a niche lens. It is a pretty common lens for landscapes, events and portraits.

Again, I care about the professional products I would use for events, portraits, sports and landscapes. Pretty general use.

I don't always get your way of thinking. When something from Nikon is superior (e.g. the Sony Exmor sensor they are using), you praise it because image quality is all that matters in the end. When something from Canon is better (e.g. the new 200-400 or the MP-E 65mm F/2.8) you find an excuse (e.g. too expensive, niche market etc).

Nikon could have had a brilliant 400mm 2.8 lens that is perfect in every way and weighs 3 lbs, but costs $25k. I wouldn't care because I think that price would be out of line. I think Canon made a great lens with the 200-400, but it is also double the price of the other lens out there with that focal range. When you shoot for a living, doubling the price on an already expensive lens has to be considered. I'm not a corporation that is issued gear. Every piece of gear I buy is something that comes out of my pocket AND is less that I have to save or invest.

Nikon has a 45mm tilt shift that rates higher than Canon's. I bought the Canon one because I thought it would be fun to get a few shots with. The Nikon is a better lens, but it is also double the price. For $900 or whatever I paid for the Canon one, I would consider it for the odd shot here and there. For $2k, not even going to consider it.

Nikon also has three different teleconverters, 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x. I think that is cool, but I never use TCs, so it didn't factor into my decision. Just don't care.

I think the Nikon 800mm lens is more expensive than the Canon 800, but again, how many people actually buy that? It just doesn't factor into my purchasing decisions. I used the Canon one and it was excellent, BTW.

I exclusively shoot in RAW, so it doesn't matter to me.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe getting the shot right in camera matters. I also know that getting it right in camera means less time to edit, which makes my life easier. Having the controls on the camera rather than going into a menu like I did on Canon makes my life easier.

It's true that Canon hits the wall earlier (especially regarding dynamic range at ISO100). But not everyone will experience that wall because of various reasons. Also when using high ISO Canon often beats Nikon when it comes down to dynamic range (although the difference isn't as big as the difference at ISO100).

Most of the time I really care about dynamic range is in portraits or landscapes, which are generally not shot at 3200ISO, for me at least. But what really did matter to me was being able to pull detail from shadows, as I like to dodge and burn. http://www.fredmiranda​.com …dex_controlled-tests.html (external link)

Like in this test, if I tried to pull too much detail out, I got a green and magenta streaky mess from a 5D3, while I get actual detail from the D800. I care about that ability. Not everyone will.


Houston Wedding Photographer (external link)
Houston Sports Photographer (external link)
Current Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
El ­ Pedro
Senior Member
Avatar
708 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 12
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Australia
     
Jan 22, 2014 13:55 |  #150

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16627378 (external link)
Call me old fashioned, but I believe getting the shot right in camera matters. I also know that getting it right in camera means less time to edit, which makes my life easier. Having the controls on the camera rather than going into a menu like I did on Canon makes my life easier.

Most of the time I really care about dynamic range is in portraits or landscapes, which are generally not shot at 3200ISO, for me at least. But what really did matter to me was being able to pull detail from shadows, as I like to dodge and burn. http://www.fredmiranda​.com …dex_controlled-tests.html (external link)

Like in this test, if I tried to pull too much detail out, I got a green and magenta streaky mess from a 5D3, while I get actual detail from the D800. I care about that ability. Not everyone will.

Just get it right in camera bro. You don't need Photoshop.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

41,089 views & 0 likes for this thread
Scott Kelby Explains Why He Switched to Canon
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Yahocustomer
935 guests, 308 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.