Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon

[Lichtgestalt]

now i hope that puts in perspective what we have to read from amateurs here who tell us for years they gonna switch to nikon.

NOBODY CARES IF YOU SWITCH TO SONIKON OR NOT... you are not scott kelby!!

 

[Lichtgestalt]

Ergonomics... (and a few thousand dollars for direct advertising from Canon 8) )

well better he gets payed by canon then nikon...not?

if you believed him in the past that he gets no money from nikon... what changed?

 

[unfocused]

One more thought. Joe McNally shoots Nikon. McNally is big part of the Kelbyone empire (possibly the best-known working professional in Kelby's stable of photographers and Photoshop experts).

I don't know if it would have influenced anything, but it certainly doesn't hurt for the top two Kelbyone photographers to be using different systems.

I also note that a Canon logo now appears on the Kelbyone website, along with a promised member discount that doesn't seem to have been posted anywhere yet.

I have several of Kelby's books and have learned much from his tips and tutorials. I don't imagine he would have switched, purely for money as he doesn't need it. But, I also suspect that if he found a system he preferred, he wouldn't be ignorant of any financial advantages it might present.

 

[bdeutsch]

If you listen to and pay attention to Kelby, it's clear that he's a business man first, a Photoshop guy 2nd, and shooting is a distant third at best. Like many others in this forum, I find it very unlikely that the shooter made the decision; it surely was the business man.

Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photographer

 

[RLPhoto]

I remember wanting to switch to a d700+SB900 system because of the nice exposures. I'm glad I didn't .

 

[DaveMiko]

... Because Canon is simply the best!!!! 8) ... Period!!!! 8)

 

[LDS]

Now he can write a whole new bunch of books about Canon gear... and sell them to Canonites who will happily buy them just because he switched to Canon...

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[Quasimodo]

OK, let's really discuss this. Canon wants Scott's social media reach. They offered him(the contract reads his company but remember he owns it) a mid 6 figure sum to "sponsor " him. That of course includes a ton of "permanent" loaners(nikon and canon give away very little so you don't sell it but it is loaned forever) but camera gear in the grand scheme of things isn't that much to companies the size of Canon, Nikon or Kelby publishing(in 2007 it was a $20 million a year company, imagine how big it is today http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/products/2007-05-08-kelby-photoshop_N.htm).
Canon and Nikon have been dumping sponsored working pros and replacing them with big social media guys because the average amateur is an internet geek and get their info from non pros like Rick and Scott. Times are changing and he who yells the loudest wins. Kelby isn't a pro and has found a small stock agency to be sponsored by because he gets them a ton of publicity, not because the photos are good(imaging him turning those pictures into SI?) That said he is a GREAT teacher. Absolutely amazing teacher so it makes total sense Canon will pay for that placement. Nikon is a much smaller company and couldn't match that deal. I expect Canon and and on a smaller scale Nikon to be doing more of this in the near future. Fans of both sides want it to be about the cameras but it's not, it's about business.
So let's cut the ergonomics talk and call it what it was, a great business deal for him, his company and Canon.

While you might very well be right, I mean who knows... I seriously doubt that it was because Nikon could not match the offerings. Ego*s like I am sure that Scott Kelby has a lot of, tend to be very emotional characters imhe. It does not take more than a new mid-manager who takes him for granted to switch between the two systems.

Now that Kelby has jumped in with Canon with both legs really ties him to a brand. It now becomes really hard for him to switch system without being the laughingstock.

 

[ewg963]

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

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

 

[Don Haines]

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....

 

[zlatko]

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]

Regardless of his reasons, does Scott Kelby really care what we think? Does it matter to any of us what he shoots?

 

[Viggo]

After using both the D4 and 1dx I can safely say no amount of money would make me switch.. Scott might be different :

 

[jrista]

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.

 

[sdsr]

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....

 

[stevejwphoto]

about 6 months... ago?

 

[RGF]

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]

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.