Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon

[9VIII]

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?

 

[DanielW]

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]

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!

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

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.

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!

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? :'(

 

[bluntforcetrauma]

It's all about the Benjamin's.

 

[jhpeterson]

I don't think Canon pays me nearly enough to extol on the virtues of the 1DX at high ISO! The files I've shot at 6400 are unbelievably clean, and I'm amazed that what was shot at 25,600 is usable in real-world applications.

If I was a skeptic before, after I saw with my one eyes what the 1DX sensor can do, I'm not at all surprised that the top pros make the switch.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Scott is a great teacher - I have taken a couple of his seminars when he has come through town. My buddy Hien snapped this of Scott and I on my old 40D, 17-55/2.8 combo. I joked with him at the time about being shot with Canon as he was a staunch Nikonian at the time...

Keep Calm and CanOn...

The 40D was about my favorite body ever. Still need to get another one someday and relive the love. I bought, used and sold 4 40D bodies to friends before I finally replaced it with the 60D. Too bad the flash in this shot didn't have a Sto-Fen on it.

 

[someonewhoknows]

.
Someonewhoknows says it more eloquently, but basically he switched because he's a whore.

Think that may be a touch harsh. He's a media person who employs +/- 50 full time people and has a lot riding on his success. Thats a lot of healthcare, paid vacations, 401k's, salary, etc etc to worry about each month. Someone comes along with a sponsorship, you would listen too. And I promise they didn't sign Scott, they are sponsoring all his classes, videos, workshops, etc. He doesn't "have" to change but to be honest, yes he does. Race car driviers don't have to drive the car they race for on their day off but they do. Bruno Mars can drink whatever soda he wants but I promise you won't see him in public with a coke cola. Thats the way the game is played. He's not an artist. It's no different that a working photographer taking a job to shoot for a healthcare or sports company. They pay you and tell you what they want/expect. Same deal here. Whore is an easy word to throw around anomously on the internet but expecting something for pay is hardly whoring ones self.
FWIW Since Scott has changed has his work really improved? He still does the same long lens shot of someone holding up their helmet and a 600mm closeup of someones face just like every other amatuer would if they got to go on the sidelines. Don't think a D4 or a 1dx really matters.

 

[duydaniel]

Honestly, choose whatever.
If you use a product just because you saw someone else is using it.
Then you are living the life of that person. Virtually there is nothing Canon can do and Nikon cannot or vice versa. There maybe slight differences here and there but live your own life and enjoy it

 

[SPL]

.
Someonewhoknows says it more eloquently, but basically he switched because he's a whore.

Think that may be a touch harsh. He's a media person who employs +/- 50 full time people and has a lot riding on his success. Thats a lot of healthcare, paid vacations, 401k's, salary, etc etc to worry about each month. Someone comes along with a sponsorship, you would listen too. And I promise they didn't sign Scott, they are sponsoring all his classes, videos, workshops, etc. He doesn't "have" to change but to be honest, yes he does. Race car driviers don't have to drive the car they race for on their day off but they do. Bruno Mars can drink whatever soda he wants but I promise you won't see him in public with a coke cola. Thats the way the game is played. He's not an artist. It's no different that a working photographer taking a job to shoot for a healthcare or sports company. They pay you and tell you what they want/expect. Same deal here. Whore is an easy word to throw around anomously on the internet but expecting something for pay is hardly whoring ones self.
FWIW Since Scott has changed has his work really improved? He still does the same long lens shot of someone holding up their helmet and a 600mm closeup of someones face just like every other amatuer would if they got to go on the sidelines. Don't think a D4 or a 1dx really matters.

+1
They are all tools,...cameras, paints,..the stove used by the world renowned chef

 

[9VIII]

In the youtube comments another switching event is pointed out.

http://tamaralackeyblog.com/switch-from-canon-to-nikon/


Honestly at this point I have doubts that anyone has ever switched systems for completely logical reasons.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

Yes that is certainly quite possible, but what is suspect is that he makes a big deal about a high iso improvement compared to his D4 which doesn't actually exist while ignoring a low ISO improvement that is there. Not suspect would have been to mention that the loss of low ISO DR alone or to have mentioned nothing about the sensors whatsoever (high iso is the same for D4 and 1DX pretty much and if he doesn't care about the low ISO DR he doesn't care).

It's certainly quite possibly he did end up liking the 1DX better than his D4 no doubt at all (although whether he would have put out tens of thousands of his own to add a top sports level Canon setup to his arsenal is less certain), but with all the sponsorship you can be sure it will be tougher for him to bring up any negative points about Canon (as the high ISO/low ISO thing hints at), it's just natural for it to be a bit tougher when people are being nice and giving you this and that.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

only if it backfires and they decide it's not worth it to sponsor him hah

probably not hah

 

[jrista]

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.

Yes that is certainly quite possible, but what is suspect is that he makes a big deal about a high iso improvement compared to his D4 which doesn't actually exist while ignoring a low ISO improvement that is there. Not suspect would have been to mention that the loss of low ISO DR alone or to have mentioned nothing about the sensors whatsoever (high iso is the same for D4 and 1DX pretty much and if he doesn't care about the low ISO DR he doesn't care).

It's certainly quite possibly he did end up liking the 1DX better than his D4 no doubt at all (although whether he would have put out tens of thousands of his own to add a top sports level Canon setup to his arsenal is less certain), but with all the sponsorship you can be sure it will be tougher for him to bring up any negative points about Canon (as the high ISO/low ISO thing hints at), it's just natural for it to be a bit tougher when people are being nice and giving you this and that.

The high ISO difference doesn't exist on paper, or in artificial tests.

Read my previous response to you...I provided some links with visual evidence that there IS a difference between the D4 and 1D X at high ISO, giving a clear edge to the 1D X. The key is that the 1D X has less apparent color noise, especially in the shadows...by quite a visible margin. The D4 at anything over 12800 is doing a digital boost, so it's lifting read noise along with everything else, so more color noise is expected. The 1D X, on the other hand, is doing amplification at the pixel before readout up to ISO 51200, so only ISO 102400 and 204800 are doing a digital boost and lifting read noise. This real-world difference has a meaningful impact on real and perceived IQ at very high ISO settings.

Artificial tests and paper specs don't tell you everything.

 

[MovingViolations]

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.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

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.

 

[MovingViolations]

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.

 

[David Hull]

This is shocking because Scott Kelby has always been a very strong proponent of the Nikon system. Now, why will someone who has touted the wide dynamic range in Nikon cameras suddenly switch to a system with inferior sensors? ;D ;D ;D

He probably figured out as millions have, that whatever deficiencies the Canon sensor implementation may present, they just don't make much difference for the shots he is trying to get.

 

[David Hull]

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.

For what he does, the Low ISO DR difference might not be much of an issue. He is a sports guy mostly, I think.

 

[Richard8971]

With regard to choosing one camera over the other because of ergonomics I will say this, I shoot Canon and my wife shoots Nikon. She has the D7000 and D7100. I had the chance to purchase a D7000 and make the switch a little while ago and one of the reasons why I didn't was because I really don't care for the way these particular cameras felt in my hands. I love the way my Canon bodies feel.

As far as image quality goes Nikons are fantastic. My decision had nothing to do with that. In fact I think Canon can learn a thing or two from some of the features found in Nikon bodies.

I can understand if Scott changed because of ergonomics.... made sense to me.

D