Crazy... go Nikon?

[expatinasia]

It does not become silly just because you "think" ... there are some people like me (although in the minority) do play with dual systems ... but once again that does not make it "silly", it only means that you "think" it is silly i.e. it is all in your head and is not real. ;D
You chose Canon for a reason, I respect that but calling others silly bcoz they don't do what you do is actually silly. Just like you "have more time for Sony rumours", some of us have the time and interest to play with dual systems.
(BTW, I did read your rebuttal in a later post but whatever your reasons are, just bcoz you "think" it is silly does not make it silly ... a small secret, we all "think" many things but some of them are not real ;D)

Are you mainly shooting international sporting events or landscapes/weddings etc?

As my first post was really pointed at the sports pro. If landscapes then of course it does not matter as much.

Perhaps I chose a wrong word, when I used the word "silly". But I still do not think it benefits the photographer (especially pro sports photographer) to have two DSLR systems each with their own lenses.

That is my opinion, and that is what forums are for. But you are right just cos I think one thing, does not make it right, or wrong. I am pleased you admitted you are in the minority - and there is a reason for that.

Added: and the reason I mentioned Sony, is I could imagine having a small camera like the RX1 in my bag with me, which would mean I too would be then using a dual system. But what it does not mean, is I would be investing in glass for that system, because I would still only use Canon for that - unless I decide to change and go to Nikon or another brand in the future. I would not invest in two different DSLR systems that require lens investments.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

It does not become silly just because you "think" ... there are some people like me (although in the minority) do play with dual systems ... but once again that does not make it "silly", it only means that you "think" it is silly i.e. it is all in your head and is not real. ;D
You chose Canon for a reason, I respect that but calling others silly bcoz they don't do what you do is actually silly. Just like you "have more time for Sony rumours", some of us have the time and interest to play with dual systems.
(BTW, I did read your rebuttal in a later post but whatever your reasons are, just bcoz you "think" it is silly does not make it silly ... a small secret, we all "think" many things but some of them are not real ;D)

Are you mainly shooting international sporting events or landscapes/weddings etc?

As my first post was really pointed at the sports pro. If landscapes then of course it does not matter as much.

Perhaps I chose a wrong word, when I used the word "silly". But I still do not think it benefits the photographer (especially pro sports photographer) to have two DSLR systems each with their own lenses.

That is my opinion, and that is what forums are for. But you are right just cos I think one thing, does not make it right, or wrong. I am pleased you admitted you are in the minority - and there is a reason for that.

Added: and the reason I mentioned Sony, is I could imagine having a small camera like the RX1 in my bag with me, which would mean I too would be then using a dual system. But what it does not mean, is I would be investing in glass for that system, because I would still only use Canon for that - unless I decide to change and go to Nikon or another brand in the future. I would not invest in two different DSLR systems that require lens investments.

I do not disagree with what you are saying ... the only objection was for the "silly" comment, glad you acknowledge that it was a wrong choice of word, I suppose we are all guilty of that ... unfortunately those kind of words tend to get picked up and we receive brick bats.
Although I jumped camp from Nikon to Canon a few years ago, I currently do not have any "serious" glass invested in Nikon, I only have 1 lens (18-300 VR) for my D7000 which is mainly used for everyday general purpose and vacations for its sheer convenience ... for all "serious" shoots I use the 5D MKIII and a few L lenses ... Of course I am saving up for the Nikkor 14-24 and a D800 for landscape photography (which is about a year away from happening). I like being able to play with both systems and I have a plan to teach photography when I'm 60 and retire from my current job in the oil and gas industry (which is also well over a decade away from happening :-[ ) so being able to understand and use both systems from the "big boys" is kind of important to me.

 

[expatinasia]

I do not disagree with what you are saying ... the only objection was for the "silly" comment, glad you acknowledge that it was a wrong choice of word, I suppose we are all guilty of that ... unfortunately those kind of words tend to get picked up and we receive brick bats.
Although I jumped camp from Nikon to Canon a few years ago, I currently do not have any "serious" glass invested in Nikon, I only have 1 lens (18-300 VR) for my D7000 which is mainly used for everyday general purpose and vacations for its sheer convenience ... for all "serious" shoots I use the 5D MKIII and a few L lenses ... Of course I am saving up for the Nikkor 14-24 and a D800 for landscape photography (which is about a year away from happening). I like being able to play with both systems and I have a plan to teach photography when I'm 60 and retire from my current job in the oil and gas industry (which is also well over a decade away from happening :-[ ) so being able to understand and use both systems from the "big boys" is kind of important to me.

Sounds like a good plan. You say you are in the oil and gas industry, are you on a rig? Have known a few people that work on rigs, and it is a tough life, though I believe the pay is quite good.

I did look briefly at the Nikon D800E when it came out, and it looks like a very nice camera. Some friends have the D4 and they absolutely love it too.

It will be very interesting to see whether Nikon do bring out the D4X or whatever it is rumoured to be called, and what exactly Canon puts in the 7D Mark II.

Whichever brand, the future of photography is very bright indeed. Thanks.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I do not disagree with what you are saying ... the only objection was for the "silly" comment, glad you acknowledge that it was a wrong choice of word, I suppose we are all guilty of that ... unfortunately those kind of words tend to get picked up and we receive brick bats.
Although I jumped camp from Nikon to Canon a few years ago, I currently do not have any "serious" glass invested in Nikon, I only have 1 lens (18-300 VR) for my D7000 which is mainly used for everyday general purpose and vacations for its sheer convenience ... for all "serious" shoots I use the 5D MKIII and a few L lenses ... Of course I am saving up for the Nikkor 14-24 and a D800 for landscape photography (which is about a year away from happening). I like being able to play with both systems and I have a plan to teach photography when I'm 60 and retire from my current job in the oil and gas industry (which is also well over a decade away from happening :-[ ) so being able to understand and use both systems from the "big boys" is kind of important to me.

Sounds like a good plan. You say you are in the oil and gas industry, are you on a rig? Have known a few people that work on rigs, and it is a tough life, though I believe the pay is quite good.

I did look briefly at the Nikon D800E when it came out, and it looks like a very nice camera. Some friends have the D4 and they absolutely love it too.

It will be very interesting to see whether Nikon do bring out the D4X or whatever it is rumoured to be called, and what exactly Canon puts in the 7D Mark II.

Whichever brand, the future of photography is very bright indeed. Thanks.

I am office based but do go to the rigs thrice a week.
I certainly agree that the future of photography is very bright, especially with all the competition these days.

 

[sanj]

I'm waiting for a Sigma or Tamron to come up with a lens that is bought in two parts: (1) is the glass assembly, outer casing, zoom/focus, etc and (2) is the interface between the lens and the camera.

Then I will be able to buy a bunch of Sigma/Tamron lenses and depending on which manufacturer's camera I have or want to use, I attach the relevant electronics and mounting plate.

So maybe a $1000 Sigma lens becomes $950 plus a $50 thing to attach it to Canon/Nikon. Then there is no need to change lenses

You should copyright your such brilliant ideas...!!

 

[ksagomonyants]

I think that next time when someone starts a new thread how inadequate Canon is for his needs, he should also post an image where he will point what exactly he finds inadequate. Otherwise, how can one be convinced that 22 megapixels isn't enough for someone's but 36 megapixels is? So, I'd suggest do the following:
1. Start a new thread and post an image you took with your Canon gear.
2. Indicate what exactly you don't like in it. Is it the lack of your photographic skills which doesn't let you get great images, or it's a camera/lens inability to produce what you'd like to see?
3. Answer your own question, does a possible negligible difference in IQ justify investing into a new system?

A while ago, I myself was considering buying a Sony FF DSLR in addition to my Canon, just because of the Zeiss 135 1.8. But every time I had these thoughts, I was always thinking that Canon's 135 2.0, 85 1.2ii, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.2, Zeiss 100 2.0 makro and my favorite 200 2.0 are at least as good as 135 1.8.

Guys, I really think we should stop this thread. As I've said before, it's a personal decision to invest his own money into something or not, same as with cars, computers, smartphones, girls Some of us can see the logic in it, some cannot. If having an additional system makes you happy, go for it and enjoy your photographs! Although sometimes we're getting upset with Canon, I'm sure we'll be proud of its new products soon (but probably not this week)

 

[J.R.]

I think that next time when someone starts a new thread how inadequate Canon is for his needs, he should also post an image where he will point what exactly he finds inadequate. Otherwise, how can one be convinced that 22 megapixels isn't enough for someone's but 36 megapixels is? So, I'd suggest do the following:
1. Start a new thread and post an image you took with your Canon gear.
2. Indicate what exactly you don't like in it. Is it the lack of your photographic skills which doesn't let you get great images, or it's a camera/lens inability to produce what you'd like to see?
3. Answer your own question, does a possible negligible difference in IQ justify investing into a new system?

A while ago, I myself was considering buying a Sony FF DSLR in addition to my Canon, just because of the Zeiss 135 1.8. But every time I had these thoughts, I was always thinking that Canon's 135 2.0, 85 1.2ii, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.2, Zeiss 100 2.0 makro and my favorite 200 2.0 are at least as good as 135 1.8.

Guys, I really think we should stop this thread. As I've said before, it's a personal decision to invest his own money into something or not, same as with cars, computers, smartphones, girls Some of us can see the logic in it, some cannot. If having an additional system makes you happy, go for it and enjoy your photographs! Although sometimes we're getting upset with Canon, I'm sure we'll be proud of its new products soon (but probably not this week)

I've seen other posters (esp. RLPhoto and PBD) who've been asking for much of the same - example of a shot where the Canon system screwed up as compared to Nikon ... the result ... none, nada.

Yes DR is important and I'd take 14 stops any day ... but to say it greatly limits shooting is just plain wrong.

 

[RLPhoto]

If I had the money, I'd probably own nikon, canon, Olympus, Sony, and possibly a phase one. Owning two brands is irrelevant, but is it good business? That is the question.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

If I had the money, I'd probably own nikon, canon, Olympus, Sony, and possibly a phase one. Owning two brands is irrelevant, but is it good business? That is the question.

If one had enough money to own that many cameras and lenses, I suppose the question of "business" would be not even arise coz it would just be for pleasure ... but if its a camera store than the question of "is it good business" would be relevant.

 

[Don Haines]

I'm waiting for a Sigma or Tamron to come up with a lens that is bought in two parts: (1) is the glass assembly, outer casing, zoom/focus, etc and (2) is the interface between the lens and the camera.

Then I will be able to buy a bunch of Sigma/Tamron lenses and depending on which manufacturer's camera I have or want to use, I attach the relevant electronics and mounting plate.

So maybe a $1000 Sigma lens becomes $950 plus a $50 thing to attach it to Canon/Nikon. Then there is no need to change lenses

The Tamron Adaptall mount was fantastic.... I still have my 90mm macro that I bought for my Olympus OM-1... change the adaptor from OM to EOS and now it works with my Canon. I would love to see that again.....

 

[J.R.]

I think that next time when someone starts a new thread how inadequate Canon is for his needs, he should also post an image where he will point what exactly he finds inadequate. Otherwise, how can one be convinced that 22 megapixels isn't enough for someone's but 36 megapixels is? So, I'd suggest do the following:
1. Start a new thread and post an image you took with your Canon gear.
2. Indicate what exactly you don't like in it. Is it the lack of your photographic skills which doesn't let you get great images, or it's a camera/lens inability to produce what you'd like to see?
3. Answer your own question, does a possible negligible difference in IQ justify investing into a new system?

A while ago, I myself was considering buying a Sony FF DSLR in addition to my Canon, just because of the Zeiss 135 1.8. But every time I had these thoughts, I was always thinking that Canon's 135 2.0, 85 1.2ii, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.2, Zeiss 100 2.0 makro and my favorite 200 2.0 are at least as good as 135 1.8.

Guys, I really think we should stop this thread. As I've said before, it's a personal decision to invest his own money into something or not, same as with cars, computers, smartphones, girls Some of us can see the logic in it, some cannot. If having an additional system makes you happy, go for it and enjoy your photographs! Although sometimes we're getting upset with Canon, I'm sure we'll be proud of its new products soon (but probably not this week)

I've seen other posters (esp. RLPhoto and PBD) who've been asking for much of the same - example of a shot where the Canon system screwed up as compared to Nikon ... the result ... none, nada.

Yes DR is important and I'd take 14 stops any day ... but to say it greatly limits shooting is just plain wrong.

None, nada?

There are several comparisons showing the benefits of great DR.
You can start to look at this video Nikon DX vs Canon APS-C: Dynamic Range (Part 2/3)
then you maybe understand

Highlights exposing so no clipping occurs=high contrast scene
Then you have a lot of examples at Dpreview, Luminous Landscape etc etc etc and even here by Mikael Risedal

If you have trouble to understand the benefits of great DR and no visible banding/pattern noise , look at the video again.

No one would say no to a good lens compared to a inferior one, likewise with a sensor
But you can offcourse always argue that you can not se any difference in a small picture.

Yawn!

If you choose to not read what I wrote, read again.

BTW, if sensor performance is all you really care about ... Go Nikon!

 

[Aglet]

There are guys with numerous cameras at most sporting events. If I could afford it, I would probably have three as an ideal number, as it is I have to make do with two. Some major newspapers have or use photographers that only have one camera.

You have 4 bodies. Good for you. Well done. Big cheer.

Are they all DSLRs? Are they all one brand? What are they?

Interesting question. I wonder why Canon sticks two memory cards in it systems. One reason is that you can double your memory capacity, another is so if you want you can write to both cards at the same time, just in case....

And your point about swapping lenses taking time in the case of a camera failure is really rather moot (not the word I want to use) considering that if you had two different systems you would not be able to swap lenses at all.... :

1) What is your point? Apart from the tired sarcasm, and just saying my opinion is totally invalid?

You have a camera shop strung around your neck while you shoot weddings, that's your choice, I see nothing wrong with that. But I would never shoot sports with more than one camera system and I do not know anyone that does. But when I am next at an international event I will check and report back to you.

Well, weddings are a lot slower than sports so 3 Rebels and a 40D were used on my last wedding shoot about 4 yrs ago.
1006 shots taken; 1002 delivered, 2 held back for legal reasons, 1 shot of my foot, 1 focus miss.
10-22mm, 17-55mm, 18-250mm, 70-200/2.8 for the formals (outside)
3x 580EX2s and 420EX for occasional fill
So, plenty of cams and lenses BUT THE BODIES WERE CHEAP, LIGHT, AND ADEQUATE for that kind of work.
Even tho I used gear that shared a lot of common accessories, it would not have mattered if if one cam was another brand with that kind of lens coverage.

Frankly, at the speed weddings typically move at, I could have shot them with a G-series PowerShot using wide and tele adapters, 2 flashes, and one SLR with a couple lenses.

Funny, never had a memory card failure either. May be cuz i only use premium ones that I’ve tested beforehand and I don’t pop them out of the camera every time I DL images like some like to do.

missed-shot’s a missed shot, no matter what the excuse

HIgh end competitive sports is a different shooting environment, I’d likely select gear similar to your requirements if I did such gigs.
More importantly, I’d need something to keep me awake cuz, to me, there’s nothing so boring as what passes for commercial spectator sports. (gag) Weddings are a close second, FWIW, and I don’t care to do either of those, or other events, any more.
Trying to have FUN with my gear now, shooting whatever I like.

So, I’m saying your point is only valid in a very limited situation, in many others situations, it’s not at all critical.

 

[charlesa]

Enough with the flame wars already

As the OP I never meant to be a Canon vs Nikon rant, just to assess the veracity of owning the best of both worlds and whether it made sense business wise.

All I got was that people stick to their system even if it shot them in the foot... repeatedly. Brand loyalty does not make sense.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

My take ---

If it makes sense to use both systems, use them! If it doesn't, then don't. Yeah, that's very simplistic, but that's what it boils down too. I shoot weddings, events, portraits, and some fine art. I don't feel that for me using a dual system makes sense financially. If the fine art were the prime focus of what I'm doing then yeah for sure I would be adding the d800 to my kit (or even a 1ds3).

 

[RLPhoto]

I think that next time when someone starts a new thread how inadequate Canon is for his needs, he should also post an image where he will point what exactly he finds inadequate. Otherwise, how can one be convinced that 22 megapixels isn't enough for someone's but 36 megapixels is? So, I'd suggest do the following:
1. Start a new thread and post an image you took with your Canon gear.
2. Indicate what exactly you don't like in it. Is it the lack of your photographic skills which doesn't let you get great images, or it's a camera/lens inability to produce what you'd like to see?
3. Answer your own question, does a possible negligible difference in IQ justify investing into a new system?

A while ago, I myself was considering buying a Sony FF DSLR in addition to my Canon, just because of the Zeiss 135 1.8. But every time I had these thoughts, I was always thinking that Canon's 135 2.0, 85 1.2ii, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.2, Zeiss 100 2.0 makro and my favorite 200 2.0 are at least as good as 135 1.8.

Guys, I really think we should stop this thread. As I've said before, it's a personal decision to invest his own money into something or not, same as with cars, computers, smartphones, girls Some of us can see the logic in it, some cannot. If having an additional system makes you happy, go for it and enjoy your photographs! Although sometimes we're getting upset with Canon, I'm sure we'll be proud of its new products soon (but probably not this week)

I've seen other posters (esp. RLPhoto and PBD) who've been asking for much of the same - example of a shot where the Canon system screwed up as compared to Nikon ... the result ... none, nada.

Yes DR is important and I'd take 14 stops any day ... but to say it greatly limits shooting is just plain wrong.

None, nada?

There are several comparisons showing the benefits of great DR.
You can start to look at this video Nikon DX vs Canon APS-C: Dynamic Range (Part 2/3)
then you maybe understand

Highlights exposing so no clipping occurs=high contrast scene
Then you have a lot of examples at Dpreview, Luminous Landscape etc etc etc and even here by Mikael Risedal

If you have trouble to understand the benefits of great DR and no visible banding/pattern noise , look at the video again.

No one would say no to a good lens compared to a inferior one, likewise with a sensor
But you can offcourse always argue that you can not se any difference in a small picture.

Read carefully this. Nikon has better DR than canon, Everyone here knows that. Anyone who argues otherwise is out of their minds.

The real point is this, in actual shooting could you, not DXO, not camera labs or anyone else show in your photos that a canon cameras DR has failed you. If so, then make your point to switch immediately to nikon because canon is limiting your creativity. If you can't show so, don't complain here. We're talking real, solid photos not induced under-exposed crap but real photos.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

First a Toyota, then a Honda, then a Mercedes, then a BMW - brand loyalty sucks, performance rules.
Do whatever the hell you want.

 

[bycostello]

f8 and be there i think someone once said.... didn't mention what to turn up with though!

 

[bdunbar79]

I think that next time when someone starts a new thread how inadequate Canon is for his needs, he should also post an image where he will point what exactly he finds inadequate. Otherwise, how can one be convinced that 22 megapixels isn't enough for someone's but 36 megapixels is? So, I'd suggest do the following:
1. Start a new thread and post an image you took with your Canon gear.
2. Indicate what exactly you don't like in it. Is it the lack of your photographic skills which doesn't let you get great images, or it's a camera/lens inability to produce what you'd like to see?
3. Answer your own question, does a possible negligible difference in IQ justify investing into a new system?

A while ago, I myself was considering buying a Sony FF DSLR in addition to my Canon, just because of the Zeiss 135 1.8. But every time I had these thoughts, I was always thinking that Canon's 135 2.0, 85 1.2ii, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.2, Zeiss 100 2.0 makro and my favorite 200 2.0 are at least as good as 135 1.8.

Guys, I really think we should stop this thread. As I've said before, it's a personal decision to invest his own money into something or not, same as with cars, computers, smartphones, girls Some of us can see the logic in it, some cannot. If having an additional system makes you happy, go for it and enjoy your photographs! Although sometimes we're getting upset with Canon, I'm sure we'll be proud of its new products soon (but probably not this week)

I've seen other posters (esp. RLPhoto and PBD) who've been asking for much of the same - example of a shot where the Canon system screwed up as compared to Nikon ... the result ... none, nada.

Yes DR is important and I'd take 14 stops any day ... but to say it greatly limits shooting is just plain wrong.

None, nada?

There are several comparisons showing the benefits of great DR.
You can start to look at this video Nikon DX vs Canon APS-C: Dynamic Range (Part 2/3)
then you maybe understand

Highlights exposing so no clipping occurs=high contrast scene
Then you have a lot of examples at Dpreview, Luminous Landscape etc etc etc and even here by Mikael Risedal

If you have trouble to understand the benefits of great DR and no visible banding/pattern noise , look at the video again.

No one would say no to a good lens compared to a inferior one, likewise with a sensor
But you can offcourse always argue that you can not se any difference in a small picture.

Read carefully this. Nikon has better DR than canon, Everyone here knows that. Anyone who argues otherwise is out of their minds.

The real point is this, in actual shooting could you, not DXO, not camera labs or anyone else show in your photos that a canon cameras DR has failed you. If so, then make your point to switch immediately to nikon because canon is limiting your creativity. If you can't show so, don't complain here. We're talking real, solid photos not induced under-exposed crap but real photos.

As usual, no response yet.

 

[Aglet]

As usual, no response yet.

you saw this on the other thread, no?...
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13773.150

Please do, I have been dying to see some optimally exposed shots where the DR of a Canon has substantially ruined a shot yet a Nikon capture would have been perfect.

Here is one from a recent shoot of a prison complex:
http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/cell-block-2nd-level.jpg

The common area on the first floor is illuminated by a skylight. The dark gray cell doors on the second level have no lighting on them at all. Exposing correctly for the highlights in this scene severly underexposes the doors. There is no way to set up any additional lighting. Lifting the shadows on the doors in post leads to very obvious pattern noise on the doors. The eventual solution is blending multiple exposures. If this had been shot with an Exmor sensor simply lifting the shadows in a single exposure would not have been a problem.

Another example:
http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/IMG_6414-web.jpg

This image was exposed to capture the colors along the horizon. But because of dynamic range limitations, the water that should have been dark blue in the lower left corner was instead black. This requires lifting the shadows again. On the first 20x30 inch print I made, the shadow banding was clearly evident:
http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/IMG_6414-20x30crop-no-nr.jpg

I had to go back, reprocess the image multiple times, blend exposures, apply noise reduction with debanding, apply a manual blur brush, and apply grain to even things out. Again, with a better sensor, this processing scenario would have been greatly simplified.

(A longer explanation can be found at this link: http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/2012/04/dynamic-range-canon-dslrs-and-shadow-noise-dealing-with-it/ )

I will just add one more note: "ruined" is your term, not mine. And it's a loaded term. I don't think Canon images are "ruined" by not having more dynamic range. But there are circumstances where it becomes problematic.

 

[RLPhoto]

@aglet.

Please view this thread to grasp how real photographers use timing, placement, and effort to get what they want. No amount of DR will ever change that.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=295.0

I still haven't seen any photos posted from yourself on this topic BTW.