November 25, 2014, 10:33:36 PM

Author Topic: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon  (Read 20779 times)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4018
    • View Profile
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2014, 04:34:14 PM »
He sounded somewhat believable until he started going on about the amazing high ISO performance. I mean yeah the 1DX high ISO is very good.... BUT so is the D4 that he has! The 1DX high ISO is no better at all than his D4 and the 5D3 high ISO is worse than the D4 high ISO (although the extra MP on the 5D3 helps a bit in some ways). And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.

I do like Canon's UI a lot better myself though.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2014, 04:34:14 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3476
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2014, 04:44:26 PM »
Is anyone from Nikon reading this? I can be paid big bucks to switch to Nikon.... I can tell everyone how 50 plus megapixels and 24 stops of dynamic range made all the difference in the world when shooting pictures of my white cat in a snowstorm....
The best camera is the one in your hands

zlatko

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
    • http://www.zlatkobatistich.com
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2014, 04:52:34 PM »
And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.

It's quite possible that Nikon's dynamic range at low ISO makes no difference to Scott Kelby.  It makes no difference to me at all.

tiger82

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 393
    • View Profile
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2014, 05:03:44 PM »
Regardless of his reasons, does Scott Kelby really care what we think?  Does it matter to any of us what he shoots?
1D4 with 70-200 IS f/2.8L, 5D2 with 24-70 f/2.8L

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2112
    • View Profile
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2014, 05:33:18 PM »
After using both the D4 and 1dx I can safely say no amount of money would make me switch.. Scott might be different  ::)
1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4628
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2014, 05:43:50 PM »
He sounded somewhat believable until he started going on about the amazing high ISO performance. I mean yeah the 1DX high ISO is very good.... BUT so is the D4 that he has! The 1DX high ISO is no better at all than his D4 and the 5D3 high ISO is worse than the D4 high ISO (although the extra MP on the 5D3 helps a bit in some ways). And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.

I do like Canon's UI a lot better myself though.

Based on DXO tests (i.e. "on paper"), no, the 1D X high ISO is theoretically the same as the D4. However, from a visual standpoint, I've seen ISO 16000 images and even some ISO 51200 sports images from a 1D X that simply blow me away...similar images from the D4 just don't engender the same feeling of low noise and clean quality. The D4 also actually tops out at native ISO 12800, beyond which you can only select full stops with "expanded" modes. ISOs above 12800 on the D4 (and pretty much any other Nikon camera that supports expanded ISO above 12800) feel a bit "gritty." The 1D X offers full native third-stop ISO capability right up to ISO 51200, and its third stops are very clean. You have the option of using the cleanest ISO options above 12800 with the 1D X, where as you can only use 25600 (H1), 51200 (H2), 102400 (H3), and 204800 (H4) on the D4...that is a factor that cannot be overlooked, as you can always use say ISO 16000 or ISO 20000 instead of 25600 when you need more than 12800, and get lower noise results. (Same goes for ISO 3200 and 40000.)

From what I can tell, the D4 suffers a little higher chroma noise (which isn't surprising, since its expanded ISOs are a digital push of ISO 12800...read noise is getting amplified). The 1D X has lower chroma noise up through ISO 51200 (particularly in the blacks...chroma noise in the lower tones on the 1D X is very good, but it is quite visible on the D4. See here for an example: http://www.cameraegg.org/canon-eos-1d-x-vs-nikon-d4-high-iso-test/). Luma noise is easy to clean up, where as cleaning excessive color noise can leave a bit of blotchiness behind. I've seen a number of bird photos from ISO 16000 and on taken with the 1D X, including a few ISO 51200 shots (couple shots of some geese...they were amazing, if I can find the link). The results have always been astonishing, very clean, crisp, good color fidelity.

Here are some more examples of the 1D X edge at high ISO:

http://thenewcamera.com/canon-1dx-vs-nikon-d4-high-iso-war/


Artificial tests don't tell you everything. On paper, the two cameras might as well be identical. In practice, chroma noise at higher ISO settings on the D4 start eating away at detail in the shadows, where as chroma noise is quite low in the shadows with the 1D X. As a result, high ISO photos taken with the 1D X are remarkably clean and usable. An excellent example would be the NY Manhatten Island photo taken with a 1D X at ISO 25600 at night during Hurricane Sandy:


(See large version for best example of the noise quality here: http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/magsandy.jpg)

I'm still waiting to see a comparable photo like this taken with a D4. I just don't think it would have performed as well...not with it's chroma noise.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2014, 05:53:45 PM by jrista »

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2014, 05:48:13 PM »
Does he have to *switch*?  If I had the space and the money (I suspect neither is a problem for him, though of course I don't know for sure), I would keep both.  Aside from such practical considerations, I don't find brand loyalty terribly appealing.  That said, I too think Canon's ergonomics are far better than Nikon's....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2014, 05:48:13 PM »

stevejwphoto

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
    • Steve Wakeman
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2014, 05:56:53 PM »
about 6 months... ago?

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1300
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2014, 06:10:47 PM »
He sounded somewhat believable until he started going on about the amazing high ISO performance. I mean yeah the 1DX high ISO is very good.... BUT so is the D4 that he has! The 1DX high ISO is no better at all than his D4 and the 5D3 high ISO is worse than the D4 high ISO (although the extra MP on the 5D3 helps a bit in some ways). And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.

I do like Canon's UI a lot better myself though.

The key issue I beat is the size of the dangle.  Working with Canon, he will get lots of stuff, either free or on loan

OmarSV11

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
    • Omar Sierralta
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2014, 07:04:15 PM »
Nikon ergnomics is a piece of crap... The AE-L/AF-L button is pushed right beside the viewfinder and some of my students find it really hard to use, as we teach them about back focusing button.

9VIII

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2014, 07:26:44 PM »
I don't imagine he would have switched, purely for money as he doesn't need it.

Sure, and professional athletes already making $20 million per year don't sign contracts with other teams to make an extra couple million, because they don't need the money, either.  Right.   ::)

Put all the crimson lipstick you want on the pig, it's still about the money.
+1

After he said about four times in the first two minutes of the video "Canon said you don't have to switch", and then "they were really really like, almost hyper, you don't have to switch".

Why does everyone think that he switched for money? He clearly stated that they were already sponsoring his tours and didn't need him to switch. As noted it looks like he just doesn't care what he uses that much, which makes it more likely he's just a kid in a candy store, what's the big deal?
Basically he would by lying if he actually got more money to switch.

Do you guys think he's being a politician and just leaving out the "but we'll pay you twice as much if you do switch" part?
-100% RAW-

DanielW

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2014, 07:29:38 PM »
And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.

It's quite possible that Nikon's dynamic range at low ISO makes no difference to Scott Kelby.  It makes no difference to me at all.

+1

DanielW

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2014, 07:46:21 PM »
And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.

It's quite possible that Nikon's dynamic range at low ISO makes no difference to Scott Kelby.  It makes no difference to me at all.

Wow, terrific photos on your website!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2014, 07:46:21 PM »

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2014, 08:00:40 PM »
In my town, Canon is the choice of most serious photographers who have some lenses beyond the kit zoom. The vast majority of wedding photographers use 7D, 60D, and some use 5Dmark ii, 6D. On the other hand, among novice photographers (and those who only have the kit lens) the proportion is half and half Canon Nikon. There are some things I will never understand about the Nikon users:

A large part of the professionals do not know where to get the menu settings on your Nikon, and never discover what are some buttons, like the double disc on top of the D7000. ::)

I find it funny when they (Nikonians) ask me something about their camera because never managed to decipher the instruction manual. :P

I never understood why users D3100 (and similar) always buy the top of the line flash, SB 900, SB910, pretending that, SB600, SB700 are good for nothing. Those who do not buy SB910, extensively use the built-in camera flash. :-X

I'm amazed when I see many experienced photographers lost in the Nikon flash menu. WTF! :o

It also causes me laugh to see the Nikon users photograph with lens hood reverse mounted. Why not take off the lens hood? ;D

For some mysterious reason, women of my city prefer Nikon cameras. Does the ergonomics of D3100 was designed to fit perfectly in female hands? :-*

Ever wonder why many Nikonians use UV filter on your lens 18-55mm. To protect your investment in this lens? :-\

Never seen any D3, D4 in use. It seems that photojournalists do not like the Nikon options. Maybe because the Nikon authorized service takes up to 6 months to make repairs? :'(
« Last Edit: January 20, 2014, 08:24:51 PM by ajfotofilmagem »

bluntforcetrauma

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #44 on: January 20, 2014, 08:41:13 PM »
It's all about the Benjamin's.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #44 on: January 20, 2014, 08:41:13 PM »