May 26, 2018, 02:33:55 AM

Author Topic: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon  (Read 74341 times)

elkatro

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • dimatasaya.com
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #60 on: January 20, 2014, 11:59:06 PM »

Don't forget that Zack Arias also switched to Canon from Nikon back in 2011
zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/headline-i-switched-to-canon-world-still-turns/

But at the end he moved to medium format,
http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/why-i-moved-to-medium-format-phase-one-iq140-review/
6D | EOS M | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | EF-M 22mm f/2.0 | EF 50mm f/1.8 | EF 24-105 f/4 L | EF 70-200 f/4 L
www.dimatasaya.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #60 on: January 20, 2014, 11:59:06 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #61 on: January 21, 2014, 12:09:00 AM »
And just maybe he has a little advanced notice of what is coming down the road in a private meeting. Who knows? Maybe 45+ to 75 MP are not just a rumor.


This is very optimistic, but could be very much true following Kelby's move. If Canon does have plans producing a new sensor with more DR and megapixels, they'll benefit more from testers that stayed with Nikon due to those features.
I was told by a Canon dealer that there was a 75MP body under field test. It was eating  batteries like a kid M&M's. Is that true. I have no clue. I'd like to believe it. What's a few extra batteries for the best IQ in the land? If indeed it turns out true there will be some restless nights in the land of medium format 80MP bodies and backs that sold for 40k+ with very limited lens coverage.

I don't see why a 75mp sensor would "eat batteries". The power required to read out the sensor is minimal, a fraction of what is required to drive the lens, and still quite a bit less than what is required to move the mirror and actuate the shutter. There is more data to transfer, but assuming Canon has updated DIGIC accordingly, it should be able to process faster at lower power than DIGIC 5+, so I still don't think the increase in megapixel count is going to result in such a massive increase in power usage as to "eat batteries".

If Canon has made some significant strides in IQ, a 75mp FF could be rather compelling for studio shooters and other MFD users who don't want to spend tens of thousands on a true medium format system. An 80mp 60mmx40mm sensor, however, is going to have much larger pixels than a 75mp FF. Even though there is no indication that MFD sensors are getting technologically better, the larger pixel area is still going to be it's most significant advantage, resulting in higher SNR and lower noise. That will always be true, regardless of megapixel count, assuming parity between the two formats. A 100mp FF will always have worse SNR/noise than a 100mp MFD, a 250mp FF will always have worse SNR/noise than a 250mp MFD, etc.

The DSLR's strength, at least in competition with MFD, will never be the sensor. MFD will always have the better sensor. Even when pixel sizes are the same, MFD will have so many more of them that it is still going to do better overall, despite the fact that DSLR may have a potential lead in photographic DR (that will close the gap, but it will probably never be enough to overcome the sheer megapixel lead that MFD will always be able to offer.) The DSLR's strength is in all the OTHER features. The same OTHER features that make Canon's 1D X and 5D III better cameras than Nikon counterparts: AF unit, frame rate, ergonomics.

MFD cameras are studio parts. They excel at lower ISO and slower speeds. DSLR's trounce MFD when it comes to high ISO, high speed action photography, AF tracking and realtime metering/subject identification, and frame rate. These are the things that a majority of photographers need and use, which is why DSLR manufacturers have capitalized on their continual improvement. It's also these things that anyone would switch. Nikon users don't jump the D800 ship because Canon has better sensors...they jump ship because they want the 5D III AF system and Canon lenses. They ditch the D4 and move to the 1D X because the AF system, frame rate, and high ISO IQ are faster, more consistent, and better, despite the fact that the D4 has the edge at low ISO.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 12:15:34 AM by jrista »

AUGS

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #62 on: January 21, 2014, 01:34:29 AM »
And just maybe he has a little advanced notice of what is coming down the road in a private meeting. Who knows? Maybe 45+ to 75 MP are not just a rumor.
This is very optimistic, but could be very much true following Kelby's move. If Canon does have plans producing a new sensor with more DR and megapixels, they'll benefit more from testers that stayed with Nikon due to those features.
I was told by a Canon dealer that there was a 75MP body under field test. It was eating  batteries like a kid M&M's. Is that true. I have no clue. I'd like to believe it. What's a few extra batteries for the best IQ in the land? If indeed it turns out true there will be some restless nights in the land of medium format 80MP bodies and backs that sold for 40k+ with very limited lens coverage.
I don't see why a 75mp sensor would "eat batteries". The power required to read out the sensor is minimal, a fraction of what is required to drive the lens, and still quite a bit less than what is required to move the mirror and actuate the shutter. There is more data to transfer, but assuming Canon has updated DIGIC accordingly, it should be able to process faster at lower power than DIGIC 5+, so I still don't think the increase in megapixel count is going to result in such a massive increase in power usage as to "eat batteries".
(snipped)
Not sure if it was directly related to the 75Mpix reference above by MovingViolations, but this did appear back in September 2013 regarding the High Megapixel camera:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17139.msg317072#msg317072
It was eating batteries in 4K video mode.  Maybe there is an element of truth to all the rumours.

alexanderferdinand

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 465
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #63 on: January 21, 2014, 02:34:20 AM »
Among all the books I have about photography are two of Scott Kelby.
They are quite amusing and helpful.
Never knew he is/was using Nikon.
So he is switching.
If the quality of his books dont suffer I dont care.
1D MKIV, 1DX MkII, 5D Mk IV; lot of lenses, flashes etc
Fuji X100s, Sony RX100 III,
Fuji X- XT1, X- Pro2, XF 23 1,4, XF 18- 55 2,8-4, X- T1, XF 16/1,4, XF 55- 200, XF 56/1,2, XF 50-140, XF 100- 400

WillThompson

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #64 on: January 21, 2014, 04:19:28 AM »
Just another internet camera Hoe!
Will T.

KacperP

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #65 on: January 21, 2014, 05:07:38 AM »
I also bought Kelby books. Terrible waste of money and paper, that haunts and pains me for a few years already, every time I see trees :'(
Personally I'll try to keep out of my mind that switch.

Quasimodo

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 979
  • Easily intrigued :)
    • 500px.com
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #66 on: January 21, 2014, 05:27:20 AM »
I also bought Kelby books. Terrible waste of money and paper, that haunts and pains me for a few years already, every time I see trees :'(
Personally I'll try to keep out of my mind that switch.

On my part I love his books. Imho, they are well written, humorous, and I have learned lot's from him. I actually got a book by him this very Christmas. I have a few camera books, but the one I got now was the first that showed how he worked in studio (detailed instructions). And this is where many books stops.. And then he showed step by step how he PP the files. (you can even download his pictures to walk with him step by step.

People in this forum have different levels and skills, but for me this book was perfect. I could really not care any less if he shoots for Canon or Nikon or whoever :)
1Dx, 5x600 EX RT, ST-E3, Canon:24-105L , 70-200L IS II, 135L, 2x III TC, Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, Sigma 85 F1.4.
www.500px.com/gerhard1972

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #66 on: January 21, 2014, 05:27:20 AM »

Sella174

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 696
  • So there!
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #67 on: January 21, 2014, 06:12:59 AM »
Why does this "switching" by whoever to Canon gear matter at all? Well, except to maybe make all those wannabee "pros" feel more warm and fuzzy about their Canon purchases.
Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

Albi86

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 821
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #68 on: January 21, 2014, 06:26:29 AM »
There can be infinite reasons to switch system, and all of them can look either fundamental or childish.

However, the reasons for making an official statement about it, including the white-haired Sideshow Bob, are relatively few, and most of them involve those nice little green sheets with faces of long-dead people in the middle.

Rick

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #69 on: January 21, 2014, 06:39:22 AM »
Was Kelby speaking at 14 wps to match his new 1D X 14 fps? By comparison, it felt like Sammons was speaking at 3 wpm.

Kelby mentioned skin tones. Curious that the leader of Photoshop training can't fix skin tone quickly and easily in the software (though he can turn your skin polka-dotted in PS if he wants to). I would've have figured he had an action written specifically for that. Plenty of Nikon devotees claim skin tone is a simple matter in the software Kelby is supposed to be an uber-trainer for. Maybe Kelby should spend some time on the DPR Nikon forum. :)

I shoot both brands (camera and lenses) usually using both at the same location and neither reproduces color 100% accurately.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 06:43:39 AM by Rick »

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3303
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #70 on: January 21, 2014, 06:40:50 AM »
Why does this "switching" by whoever to Canon gear matter at all? Well, except to maybe make all those wannabee "pros" feel more warm and fuzzy about their Canon purchases.
I know it is fashionable to make certain comments on the internet, that kinda look like they are "different" from others, but not everything, in life, has to be viewed with cynicism. I am a subscriber to Kelbyone and I like to know what camera gear Kelby uses, it gives us an opportunity to understand why or how professionals make their decisions ... same as me (or others) wanting to know what camera gear other CR members use - in Scott Kelby's case, he is a lot more famous than us, so the level of interest is obviously more. It does not mean people are "wannabee pros" wanting to "feel more warm and fuzzy about theri Canon purchases".
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3303
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #71 on: January 21, 2014, 06:45:08 AM »
Kelby mentioned skin tones. Curious that the leader of Photoshop training can't fix skin tone quickly and easily in the software (though he can turn your skin polka-dotted in PS if he wants to). I would've have figured he had an action written specifically for that. Plenty of Nikon devotees claim skin tone is a simple matter in the software Kelby is supposed to be an uber-trainer for.  :)
All he said was that he liked the skin tones of Canon cameras, nowhere in that video did he say that he cannot fix skin tones quickly and easily or that Nikon skin tones are bad or anything like that. So, I don't know where you got your "can't fix skin tone quickly and easily" comment ... reading way too much in between the lines where there isn't any, perhaps. ::)
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 06:47:41 AM by Rienzphotoz »
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3303
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #72 on: January 21, 2014, 06:50:31 AM »
I also bought Kelby books. Terrible waste of money and paper, that haunts and pains me for a few years already, every time I see trees :'(
Personally I'll try to keep out of my mind that switch.
Could you kindly guide me to a book that you've written on photographic excellence, so I can gain some valuable knowledge.
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #72 on: January 21, 2014, 06:50:31 AM »

GMCPhotographics

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1353
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #73 on: January 21, 2014, 06:58:18 AM »
Was Kelby speaking at 14 wps to match his new 1D X 14 fps? By comparison, it felt like Sammons was speaking at 3 wpm.

Kelby mentioned skin tones. Curious that the leader of Photoshop training can't fix skin tone quickly and easily in the software (though he can turn your skin polka-dotted in PS if he wants to). I would've have figured he had an action written specifically for that. Plenty of Nikon devotees claim skin tone is a simple matter in the software Kelby is supposed to be an uber-trainer for. Maybe Kelby should spend some time on the DPR Nikon forum. :)

I shoot both brands (camera and lenses) usually using both at the same location and neither reproduces color 100% accurately.

I suspect that it was a simple marketing ploy..."hey guys...I'm a famous photographer, who makes his money teaching others how to shoot stuff. I've just swapped over to Canon....becuase of erm...er...it feels like apple made it....erm...but hey...there's loads more Canon shooters than Nikon....so come and join one of my workshops and I'll show you how great it is" :D

I reminds me of a particaulr scientific author who made a lot of money with a book which saind that he belives that there is a God....then in his next book he states the opposite, creating hysteria and hype...thus selling more books....the more controvesy, the richer he gets. I wonder what his next book will say? Like wise, I wonder about this guy...give it a few years and I wouldn't be suprised if he'll be telling everyone how the Nikon D5s is the best camera ever and feels like it's hard wired into his brain for some other twaddle.....

Rick

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #74 on: January 21, 2014, 07:19:47 AM »
Kelby mentioned skin tones. Curious that the leader of Photoshop training can't fix skin tone quickly and easily in the software (though he can turn your skin polka-dotted in PS if he wants to). I would've have figured he had an action written specifically for that. Plenty of Nikon devotees claim skin tone is a simple matter in the software Kelby is supposed to be an uber-trainer for.  :)
All he said was that he liked the skin tones of Canon cameras, nowhere in that video did he say that he cannot fix skin tones quickly and easily or that Nikon skin tones are bad or anything like that. So, I don't know where you got your "can't fix skin tone quickly and easily" comment ... reading way too much in between the lines where there isn't any, perhaps. ::)

It's humor dude. Get over it.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« Reply #74 on: January 21, 2014, 07:19:47 AM »