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 16 Jul 2013 (Tuesday) 20:24
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I'm Switching To Nikon????

 
Rafromak
Goldmember
1,967 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Alaska
     
Jul 21, 2013 21:14 |  #136

brettjrob wrote in post #16141549 (external link)
I understand the spirit of your post and others who say the same thing, but with all due respect, it comes across a bit condescending. I doubt anyone here is unaware of the points you made, or believes that expensive gear will make a crappy shot awesome. On the flip side, though, expensive gear expands the limits of where and when you can get awesome shots. That is rather undeniable, if you've ever brushed up against the limits of your equipment. And I assume most of us have, if only occasionally.

To illustrate my point, I just upgraded from a 450D to 6D earlier this year. Already, there are several shots I took above ISO 1600 that I was happy enough with to share online -- and even perhaps to print in the future. In one instance, I captured a glorious sunset from a moving vehicle out the window at ISO 2000. There was no way for me to stop and get out my tripod at the time. With the 450D, I simply wouldn't have bothered trying for the shot. Thus, had I still been using it, you wouldn't ever have seen that shot in the 450D thread. So when you argue that "look at any camera's samples, and you'll find both good and bad shots" -- that's true, of course, but what you *aren't* seeing are shots that competent shooters either a) didn't try for, or b) got poor results with and deleted, because of their gear's limitations.

To bring the discussion back closer to the spirit of this thread, I can definitely find files in my own library where the clean shadows of the Sony sensor would have made a big difference. Now, it's possible to overcome this limitation by shooting bracketed exposures, but that requires a tripod. If a tripod isn't available or practical in a given situation, though, it's tough to argue the Nikon/Sony sensor doesn't provide an advantage that's visible in real-life images. This is especially true for landscapes and other outdoor work with dynamic range issues, of course.

I am not coming across as being condescending, just realistic. If there was one camera brand out there that was the best, why should anybody buy other cameras?


7D, 5DII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Rafromak
Goldmember
1,967 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Alaska
     
Jul 21, 2013 21:21 |  #137

Shadowblade wrote in post #16141563 (external link)
That's because most people aren't looking for it. Also, matte and textured papers hide it a bit. But it's there if you look closely. Doubly so if you do any significant curves-based post-processing.

In addition, Art Wolfe is sponsored by Canon...

Of course Art Wolfe is sponsored by Canon :) My point with the fist link was to show that he does not limit his prints to 20" x 30".

Besides, a lot of other photographers who are sponsored by Nikon are also very successful and famous. All I am trying to say is that we are just fanboys arguing about with camera is better than the other, but in reality both Canon and Nikon cameras offer more features than we will ever use. Its ridiculous to say that one is better for landscapes, or this, or that, and posting a link leading to Art Wolf was to point-out to some of his landscapes taken with Canon cameras.


7D, 5DII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
brettjrob
Dr. Goodness PHD
Avatar
470 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Norman, OK USA
     
Jul 21, 2013 22:41 |  #138

Rafromak wrote in post #16141614 (external link)
I am not coming across as being condescending, just realistic. If there was one camera brand out there that was the best, why should anybody buy other cameras?

The simplest answer is because they're better in different areas (e.g., video capabilities for Canon vs. low ISO noise for Nikon, right now). Of course, for some people, it's simply that they already have a lot of gear on one platform and can't be bothered to switch. Or, as is my case, the lens selection on one platform offers something the other brand(s) can't.

I do think it's fair to say, e.g., Nikon's full-frame bodies are currently better for landscapes than Canon's, or that Canon's offerings have an edge for video (especially with ML). That may (and hopefully will) change in the near future, of course, and already has many times in recent years. I just don't see the point of ignoring it when one brand temporarily takes a decisive lead in some niche.


Nikon D610, D5100
Samyang 14/2.8 | Nikon 18-35G, 24-85G VR, 70-200/4G VR

Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | skyinmotion.com (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rafromak
Goldmember
1,967 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Alaska
     
Jul 21, 2013 23:26 |  #139

brettjrob wrote in post #16141819 (external link)
The simplest answer is because they're better in different areas (e.g., video capabilities for Canon vs. low ISO noise for Nikon, right now). Of course, for some people, it's simply that they already have a lot of gear on one platform and can't be bothered to switch. Or, as is my case, the lens selection on one platform offers something the other brand(s) can't.

I do think it's fair to say, e.g., Nikon's full-frame bodies are currently better for landscapes than Canon's, or that Canon's offerings have an edge for video (especially with ML). That may (and hopefully will) change in the near future, of course, and already has many times in recent years. I just don't see the point of ignoring it when one brand temporarily takes a decisive lead in some niche.

But see, a year or two ago the arguments revolved around Nikon's superior low-light performance. Then Canon released the 6D, and now the arguments revolve around the superior DR of Nikon cameras, which makes them better for landscapes.

But in reality, both Canon and Nikon cameras are widely used for landscapes, sports, and the rest. Only fanboys (and girls) are tied-up in all the arguments relating to which one is best for this, or for that, and so on. If Nikon cameras would be the best for landscapes, only these would be purchased by landscape photographers such as Art Wolfe and the rest :)

Meanwhile, as we spend our time arguing about camera brands and features, the most successful photographers use the cameras they have become the most proficient with...taking pictures, regardless of brand.

The problem is that some of us can't get over the fact that the camera does not make us a better photographer.
---------

That said, to make things interesting, forget about Canon and Nikon cameras for landscapes. Lets all switch to this "vastly superior camera." In fact, all landscape photographers should just send their Nikon and canon cameras to me as they switch to this one, for no camera in our universe , except for this one, is capable of capturing such images:
http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk …megapixel-Hasselblad.html (external link)


7D, 5DII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 22, 2013 00:47 |  #140

Rafromak wrote in post #16141909 (external link)
But see, a year or two ago the arguments revolved around Nikon's superior low-light performance. Then Canon released the 6D, and now the arguments revolve around the superior DR of Nikon cameras, which makes them better for landscapes.

But in reality, both Canon and Nikon cameras are widely used for landscapes, sports, and the rest. Only fanboys (and girls) are tied-up in all the arguments relating to which one is best for this, or for that, and so on. If Nikon cameras would be the best for landscapes, only these would be purchased by landscape photographers such as Art Wolfe and the rest :)


---------

That said, to make things interesting, forget about Canon and Nikon cameras for landscapes. Lets all switch to this "vastly superior camera." In fact, all landscape photographers should just send their Nikon and canon cameras to me as they switch to this one, for no camera in our universe , except for this one, is capable of capturing such images:
http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk …megapixel-Hasselblad.html (external link)


You're kidding yourself if you think the trend in landscape photography favours Canon, or isn't moving.

A lot of top-end landscape photographers - Ken Duncan, Peter Lik, Aaron Feinberg - switched from Canon to Nikon (for their non-film, non-MF work) when the D800 was released.

I've never met a landscape photographer who switched in the other direction.

Sure, there are 'plenty of photographers' shooting with both. But look where the momentum is heading - and it's not Canon.

Meanwhile, as we spend our time arguing about camera brands and features, the most successful photographers use the cameras they have become the most proficient with...taking pictures, regardless of brand.

Nope. The most successful photographers mix and match their gear, changing gear as companies' offerings change.

Many started off with large format, or MF film, or panoramic film cameras. Then they switched to digital when the 5D2 came out (some with the 1Ds3). Then they switched to the D800 when it proved to be better. Some shoot digital medium format as well, even using Canon lenses on them. Others have gone down the stitching/auto pano head route for high-resolution images. Yet another recently acquired a Leica, and now primarily uses that with Canon and Schneider tilt-shifts.

I've never met a successful landscape photographer who's only ever stuck with one brand or one sort of camera.

The problem is that some of us can't get over the fact that the camera does not make us a better photographer.

This is the most condescending thing I've read on the internet all day.

No-one's ever suggested that a better camera makes a better photographer. The only thing anyone's suggested is that a better camera lets you take good photos (or bad photos - whichever type you normally take) in a greater variety of situations, and print them larger without artifacts showing up.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Salleke
Goldmember
2,201 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Belgium
     
Jul 22, 2013 01:48 |  #141

cking2 wrote in post #16126670 (external link)
So you joined a canon forum today and your VERY first post is to tell us you are leaving. As the saying goes...don't let the door hit...

Just don't get it.

Somewhere I read that this is a forum about fotografie
and not an exclusive Canon forum.

Someone (mods?) correct me if I'm wrong.

Good luck.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Jul 22, 2013 02:25 |  #142

Salleke wrote in post #16142136 (external link)
Somewhere I read that this is a forum about fotografie
and not an exclusive Canon forum.

Someone (mods?) correct me if I'm wrong.

Good luck.

It is, but primary its about canon..


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FuturamaJSP
Goldmember
Avatar
2,227 posts
Likes: 81
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jul 22, 2013 02:53 |  #143

cking2 wrote in post #16126670 (external link)
So you joined a canon forum today and your VERY first post is to tell us you are leaving. As the saying goes...don't let the door hit...

Just don't get it.

:D more like:

Hi! and bye!
we wont miss you :D


They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I said I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard! - Fallout New Vegas
blah blah blah
DA (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FuturamaJSP
Goldmember
Avatar
2,227 posts
Likes: 81
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jul 22, 2013 02:56 |  #144

Shadowblade wrote in post #16142049 (external link)
You're kidding yourself if you think the trend in landscape photography favours Canon, or isn't moving.

A lot of top-end landscape photographers - Ken Duncan, Peter Lik, Aaron Feinberg - switched from Canon to Nikon (for their non-film, non-MF work) when the D800 was released.

I've never met a landscape photographer who switched in the other direction.

Sure, there are 'plenty of photographers' shooting with both. But look where the momentum is heading - and it's not Canon.

Nope. The most successful photographers mix and match their gear, changing gear as companies' offerings change.

Many started off with large format, or MF film, or panoramic film cameras. Then they switched to digital when the 5D2 came out (some with the 1Ds3). Then they switched to the D800 when it proved to be better. Some shoot digital medium format as well, even using Canon lenses on them. Others have gone down the stitching/auto pano head route for high-resolution images. Yet another recently acquired a Leica, and now primarily uses that with Canon and Schneider tilt-shifts.

I've never met a successful landscape photographer who's only ever stuck with one brand or one sort of camera.

This is the most condescending thing I've read on the internet all day.

No-one's ever suggested that a better camera makes a better photographer. The only thing anyone's suggested is that a better camera lets you take good photos (or bad photos - whichever type you normally take) in a greater variety of situations, and print them larger without artifacts showing up.

this could change everything:
http://blog.planet5d.c​om …-14-stops-major-landmark/ (external link)

besides whatever great lens Nikon has or will release they will be able to be used on a Canon body the same can not be said about Nikon bodies


They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I said I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard! - Fallout New Vegas
blah blah blah
DA (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 22, 2013 03:21 |  #145

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #16142195 (external link)
this could change everything:
http://blog.planet5d.c​om …-14-stops-major-landmark/ (external link)

besides whatever great lens Nikon has or will release they will be able to be used on a Canon body the same can not be said about Nikon bodies

Doesn't actually change anything - you lose half the resolution and get terrible moire. Essentially, every second line is at ISO, and the others at ISO 1600 - the sensor is taking two photo at the same time, each one using half the pixels, then combining them.

Besides, every Canon or Nikon lens can be used on a Leica...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FuturamaJSP
Goldmember
Avatar
2,227 posts
Likes: 81
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jul 22, 2013 03:42 |  #146

Shadowblade wrote in post #16142228 (external link)
Doesn't actually change anything - you lose half the resolution and get terrible moire. Essentially, every second line is at ISO, and the others at ISO 1600 - the sensor is taking two photo at the same time, each one using half the pixels, then combining them.

Besides, every Canon or Nikon lens can be used on a Leica...

ah yes. I assume you are talking about the S2 which is more of a MF camera
speaking of Leica and their ccd sensors have you seen this review? if you scroll down you will see a comparison between the xtrans sensors in Fuji and the ccd in m9
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​cameras/.shtml (external link)


They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I said I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard! - Fallout New Vegas
blah blah blah
DA (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 22, 2013 05:28 |  #147

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #16142257 (external link)
ah yes. I assume you are talking about the S2 which is more of a MF camera
speaking of Leica and their ccd sensors have you seen this review? if you scroll down you will see a comparison between the xtrans sensors in Fuji and the ccd in m9
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​cameras/.shtml (external link)

I was actually referring to the M240, with a CMOS sensor - the S2 doesn't really compete with the 5D3/1Dx/D4, although it is often compared with D800e. You can fit almost any lens onto the Leica using the right adapter.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
obkcaptain
Member
Avatar
159 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Madrid (Spain)
     
Jul 22, 2013 06:07 |  #148

Always the same...
Having a Parker pen...Can I write better poems or novels?
Welcome or good trip.
Don't feed the trolls...


A Canon gear, some lenses, mono(tri)pod, flash and need to learn...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Jul 22, 2013 06:19 |  #149

brettjrob wrote in post #16141549 (external link)
I understand the spirit of your post and others who say the same thing, but with all due respect, it comes across a bit condescending. I doubt anyone here is unaware of the points you made, or believes that expensive gear will make a crappy shot awesome. On the flip side, though, expensive gear expands the limits of where and when you can get awesome shots. That is rather undeniable, if you've ever brushed up against the limits of your equipment. And I assume most of us have, if only occasionally.

To illustrate my point, I just upgraded from a 450D to 6D earlier this year. Already, there are several shots I took above ISO 1600 that I was happy enough with to share online -- and even perhaps to print in the future. In one instance, I captured a glorious sunset from a moving vehicle out the window at ISO 2000. There was no way for me to stop and get out my tripod at the time. With the 450D, I simply wouldn't have bothered trying for the shot. Thus, had I still been using it, you wouldn't ever have seen that shot in the 450D thread. So when you argue that "look at any camera's samples, and you'll find both good and bad shots" -- that's true, of course, but what you *aren't* seeing are shots that competent shooters either a) didn't try for, or b) got poor results with and deleted, because of their gear's limitations.

To bring the discussion back closer to the spirit of this thread, I can definitely find files in my own library where the clean shadows of the Sony sensor would have made a big difference. Now, it's possible to overcome this limitation by shooting bracketed exposures, but that requires a tripod. If a tripod isn't available or practical in a given situation, though, it's tough to argue the Nikon/Sony sensor doesn't provide an advantage that's visible in real-life images. This is especially true for landscapes and other outdoor work with dynamic range issues, of course.

I run into the old white wedding dress and black tuxedo scenarios quite a bit. ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Jul 22, 2013 06:22 |  #150

brettjrob wrote in post #16141819 (external link)
The simplest answer is because they're better in different areas (e.g., video capabilities for Canon vs. low ISO noise for Nikon, right now). Of course, for some people, it's simply that they already have a lot of gear on one platform and can't be bothered to switch. Or, as is my case, the lens selection on one platform offers something the other brand(s) can't.

I do think it's fair to say, e.g., Nikon's full-frame bodies are currently better for landscapes than Canon's, or that Canon's offerings have an edge for video (especially with ML). That may (and hopefully will) change in the near future, of course, and already has many times in recent years. I just don't see the point of ignoring it when one brand temporarily takes a decisive lead in some niche.

I agree with your last statement. The problem is that many Canon users will deny it. ;)




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

15,958 views & 0 likes for this thread
I'm Switching To Nikon????
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 opcaorel
1245 guests, 226 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.