Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon

[distant.star]

Boy, there's some SERIOUS hate and bickering in this thread.

If you honestly believe this is true, I think you must have been born and raised in Disneyland.

What I see are people saying what they think, and that's a fine thing. Thanks to good mods and posters, we don't have actual flame wars here.

If someone's opinion offends you, deal with it.

No one goes through this world without being offended. Life is about being offended. How you cope with it determines how successful, happy you are.

One thing I'd ask: If Kelby is so smart, why did it take him so long to figure out that Canon is superior? And another, why did it take Canon so long to get in the game and recruit him?

 

[Maui5150]

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.

That is because the DXO tests are CRAP. What a "sensor" rating is versus the pictures produced and the capabilities of the bodies are two VERY different things

Which would your want - Nikon D600 or Nikon D4 as a pro camera... According to DXO marks, the "sensor" on the D600 is close to 10% better than the D4.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Boy, there's some SERIOUS hate and bickering in this thread.

If you honestly believe this is true, I think you must have been born and raised in Disneyland.

What I see are people saying what they think, and that's a fine thing. Thanks to good mods and posters, we don't have actual flame wars here.

If someone's opinion offends you, deal with it.

No one goes through this world without being offended. Life is about being offended. How you cope with it determines how successful, happy you are.

Are you sure you are not offended? .. coz Joshmurrah's comments do not sound like a person who is offended ... but your comments about him being "born and raised in disneyland" sound a bit personal and it looks like you are somehow offended by what he said.

 

[slakjaw]

I too am thinking about switching to Canon. I am getting more and more into video and it would be cool to someday make the transition to something like the C100 seamlessly.
Not sure my reasons are totally logical though. Nikon has been screwing up badly with the D600 and then not acknowledging the issues even exist. Plus most video guys are already using Canon or Panny

What kind of loss would I take by switching though? The thought of taking a huge loss on my D800 and all my glass keeps me with Nikon for now.

 

[Albi86]

As an aside, I think it's particularly weird that people feel the need to accuse Mr. Kelby of somehow "selling out" or being dishonest because he likes Canon cameras and is saying so.

No one is accusing anyone because no crime has been committed.

Mr Kelby is a well known photography expert, and as such his words have more impact than mine, yours, this whole forum put together. He is a living ad machine: companies know it and so does he. So I guess it's smart to at least wonder if he might have untold reasons for declaring this or that. Same as Ken Rockwell is not, by and large, considered the most unbiased reviewer.

The whole thing depends on how likely you think it is that Mr Kelby never got a chance to play with a 1Dx before 6 months ago, then it was love at first sight. For all his talk about ergonomy, skin tones and UI, I would say with any Canon camera at all, actually. How likely it is that someone like him has to "switch system" instead of just adding Canon gear to his Nikon kit. And please mind the fact that switching means making a mutually-exclusive choice. It's either this or that.

I believe he has been using Canon and Nikon stuff, and probably also Sony, Leica and whatnot (he is a gear geek by his own admission) for a long time. In the past he had reasons to present himself as a Nikon guy, now he has reasons to claim a "switch" to Canon. All fine for him, but let's try not to infer universal photographic truths out of this.

 

[NancyP]

Serious hate and bickering? Don't make generalizations about doctors. (All I "prescribe" is formalin)
Kelby must be an effective teacher, because his books and clinics have sold very well for a very long time. Kudos to him.

All that aside, re the OP: ergonomics are important. If a camera is not comfortable to use, it won't get used. I decided to give one of the Sigma compacts a try. It went out for a day, and then sat around unused for a while until I located a grip/L bracket combo for it. It is an enjoyable camera now. Lenses: I like lenses with big fat focusing rings. Again, this is an ergonomics issue, because I do a fair amount of manual focus work.

Slakjaw, you could get a 70D and one STM lens, and still keep the D800 and most of the glass. In fact, if you want to focus manually, you could get a "beater" Rebel or 60D or 5D2, kit it out with Magic Lantern firmware, and use your Nikon glass via adapter - get the kind of adapter that is labeled "for G series" (allowing aperture control), and get a good quality one. Expect to pay over $100.00 for a decent leaf-spring-containing adapter. I use old AIS lenses on my 6D, with a "older F mount lenses" adapter (Fotodiox Pro).

 

[Jeffrey]

For those of us who are lucky enough to own a 1D-X or a 5D-III, one has to ask what took Kelby so long to see the benefits in features and image quality these cameras have over what he has previously been shooting.

Sure, Kelby is entertaining and his books are helpful at times as reference materials. Do I care what cameras he shoots? About as much as he cares about what cameras I shoot.

 

[distant.star]

Are you sure you are not offended? .. coz Joshmurrah's comments do not sound like a person who is offended ... but your comments about him being "born and raised in disneyland" sound a bit personal and it looks like you are somehow offended by what he said.

I'm offended by just about everything and everybody. Anyone who is not is probably delusional.

As Sartre suggests, hell is other people. Yet I can't resist taking pictures of them!

 

[brett b]

For those of us who are lucky enough to own a 1D-X or a 5D-III, one has to ask what took Kelby so long to see the benefits in features and image quality these cameras have over what he has previously been shooting.

Sure, Kelby is entertaining and his books are helpful at times as reference materials. Do I care what cameras he shoots? About as much as he cares about what cameras I shoot.

+1
I've been to a number of his courses and he doesn't seem to be much of a "shill". Yes, his businesses are closely aligned with Adobe, but teaching Adobe products is what he does and why people attend. I've been a NAPP & Kelby Training member forever and have many of his books. None of his products advocate one camera system over another.

 

[KacperP]

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.

I could ask the same about books YOU wrote
Anyway I prefer focus on subject, detailed inside-out explanations down to paradoxes that Michael Freeman delivers.

 

[mycanonphotos]

I have been to four NAPP seminars down here in LA and loved each one of them, most recently with Joe McNally, before that with Mr. Kelby..at no time did eather one push a Camera brand, of which is nice because their work speaks for itself. The first one I went to was with Ben Willmore and he is a Canon User... Joe McNally was having issues with his Nikon Flash units as they are line of sight...They work over quite a distance but have issues when something remotly gets in the way...I was having fun watching him fumble around with his D4 trying to get them to work...
It was intresting to hear Scott's interview, glad he made the video.

 

[LostArk]

Nikon controls feel thoroughly backwards to me, in a way that no amount of getting used to could change. So I understand the ergonomics argument.

 

[gbchriste]

In re: the question of ergonomics.

I was having a discussion on metering techniques with a group of people and said that when I meter off of an 18% grey surface like the Lastolite EZBalance, I bump the meter needle a little to the right of center to increase exposure by 1/3 to 2/3 stops.

Whereupon a Nikon shooter in the group said that Nikon meters are backwards and the needle moves left at exposure increases.

My only response was, "In what bizaro universe do increasing values on a number line go right to left, instead of left to right."

I could get used to a lot of things but that one I'm not sure I would ever be able to adapt to.

 

[Stu]

It may be the bodies. It may be the lenses. Perhaps it is a NDA and the latest pro body (46 mp?) that helped. It certainly wasn't ETTL-II. Whatever it was Scott has the right to use whatever camera system he wishes. He could be like Michael Reichmann and use a variety of systems (my choice, if I could afford it -- the right tool for the job).

 

[slakjaw]

In re: the question of ergonomics.

I was having a discussion on metering techniques with a group of people and said that when I meter off of an 18% grey surface like the Lastolite EZBalance, I bump the meter needle a little to the right of center to increase exposure by 1/3 to 2/3 stops.

Whereupon a Nikon shooter in the group said that Nikon meters are backwards and the needle moves left at exposure increases.

My only response was, "In what bizaro universe do increasing values on a number line go right to left, instead of left to right."

I could get used to a lot of things but that one I'm not sure I would ever be able to adapt to.

you can switch that, there is a menu item for it.

 

[ksagomonyants]

I’m not sure how much Mr Kelby paid for the Canon gear he now has, but I hypothesize it was at a discount.

+1

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

That is because the DXO tests are CRAP. What a "sensor" rating is versus the pictures produced and the capabilities of the bodies are two VERY different things

Which would your want - Nikon D600 or Nikon D4 as a pro camera... According to DXO marks, the "sensor" on the D600 is close to 10% better than the D4.

They are not crap and they are what they are. They claim to be a sensor rating and they are sensor rating. It's your fault if you expect a sensor rating to be an entire body performance or a lens performance or OLED TV performance rating.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Did I hear Kelby correctly in the video when he was complaining about the D4 having to press the dial each time to scroll through each shot? I just tried my D800E and a single press/hold will scroll through all images automatically? Of course, if I want to stop and gaze at a particular image, I have to release my press. Same with a wheel, right? In fact, a press/hold seems easier than having to turn a wheel with the thumb as far as it can go, then repositioning the thumb on the wheel for the next batch.

Wht about the timing though, can you let go at the exact moment you want? And what about speed? With the wheel you can flip at whatever speed you want, ultra fast or medium or slow.

Also I think he said the max speed on the Nikon was pretty slow. never used the D4 myself though.

 

[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.

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.

How are you processing though? Because direct measurement BEFORE RAW converters do under the hood whatever, which may vary camera to camera even with sliders set to the same thing, the D4 has less chroma noise. Under natural lighting the D4 seems to have getting near 1 stop LESS chroma noise at very high ISO. It does seem that under tungsten lighting they may become about the same though.

It does seem that the 1DX might have somewhat more than 1/3 stop better DR once you get well above ISO6400 though.

So maybe under certain weird artificial lighting the Canon has similar luminace and chroma SNR but somewhat more than 1/3 stop better DR and 2 extra MP so maybe it does slightly better in that case.

I still find it hard to believe that somehow adds up to the 1DX looking way better at high iso. I haven't heard anyone but Scott and you say that. Maybe if you are reallllly pushing it way up there under weird types of artificial lighting it's enough to at least notice the difference in 1DX favor though. It still would seem a bit curious he makes such a huge deal about it though and ignores all the other sensor aspects.

Also he also implied the 5D3 blows away his D4 at high ISO, but the 5D3 has worse SNR, worse chroma noise and more noticeably worse DR at very high ISO than the D4. Granted the 23MP vs 16MP might the 'grain' tighter which helps make up some of the measured differences since the eye prefers smaller grain. But I still find it dubious to think the 5D3 would appear to blow the D4 away at high ISO.

 

[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.

How are you processing though? Because direct measurement BEFORE RAW converters do under the hood whatever, which may vary camera to camera even with sliders set to the same thing, the D4 has less chroma noise. Under natural lighting the D4 seems to have getting near 1 stop LESS chroma noise at very high ISO. It does seem that under tungsten lighting they may become about the same though.

It does seem that the 1DX might have somewhat more than 1/3 stop better DR once you get well above ISO6400 though.

So maybe under certain weird artificial lighting the Canon has similar luminace and chroma SNR but somewhat more than 1/3 stop better DR and 2 extra MP so maybe it does slightly better in that case.

I still find it hard to believe that somehow adds up to the 1DX looking way better at high iso. I haven't heard anyone but Scott and you say that. Maybe if you are reallllly pushing it way up there under weird types of artificial lighting it's enough to at least notice the difference in 1DX favor though. It still would seem a bit curious he makes such a huge deal about it though and ignores all the other sensor aspects.

Also he also implied the 5D3 blows away his D4 at high ISO, but the 5D3 has worse SNR, worse chroma noise and more noticeably worse DR at very high ISO than the D4. Granted the 23MP vs 16MP might the 'grain' tighter which helps make up some of the measured differences since the eye prefers smaller grain. But I still find it dubious to think the 5D3 would appear to blow the D4 away at high ISO.

It isn't me processing. It is other people, who have written well-known 1D X reviews, from whom I linked example images. They tend to process with LR, although some may process with DPP.

I think this is part of the problem with DXO results. That they are solely based on pre-demosic results. NO ONE uses RAW without demosaicing them! Every time a person views a RAW image, it has been demosaiced. And, given the plethora of visual examples on the web, the 1D X, regardless of whether sample images are produced with DPP or LR/ACR or anything else, clearly has lower noise at higher ISO settings. Especially color noise.

I think the notion of testing pre-demosaic RAW is rather misleading in many respects. I do not think that demosaicing will really change the difference between Canon and SoNikon DR all that much, maybe by a third of a stop or so. But however things work, however the algorithms in DPP and LR work, Canon results, without any additional downsampling, clearly improve AFTER they have been demosaiced. I think that is an important factor.

Also, I never expected you to take my word for it. I linked several examples in my previous answer. Just take a look. The results speak for themselves. (And those are not my images, they were taken from other well-known 1D X tests, from other people, besides Scott and myself, who ALSO say that the 1D X has less color noise at high ISO.) I don't believe there is "funky artificial lighting" or anything like that that has anything to do with the 1D X results. That's illogical, as the D4 comparison images are captured under that same light. Lighting isn't going to change how deep the shadows are post-digitizing...your really grasping at straws there. It's just a bunch of reviewers pointing the camera at something that is normally lit an taking some photos, then performing a visual analysis of the results. Just LOOK at the examples...the 1D X is clearly superior with color noise and in the shadows.

Artificial tests don't tell the whole story. Real-world tests, across the board, indicate that the 1D X has rather exceptional high ISO performance all the way up to ISO 51200. Those results FIT with the THEORY as well...it is EXPECTED that the 1D X would have less color noise and deeper shadows, because the pixel value are being amplified at the pixel, CDSed, then digitized. The D4, on the other hand, is amplified & CDSed at the pixel only up to ISO 12800, then it is digitally amplified by another stop or two to achieve ISO 25600 and 51200. It is EXPECTED that the D4 shadows would not be as rich and deep or have as low color noise as Canon's. So, it really shouldn't be all that surprising that real-world visual examples correlate with what I've said here.