Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

FM Forum Rules
Wedding Resource List
  

FM Forums | Wedding Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2016 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?

  
 
WinterSorbeck
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


During the past 10 or so years I have shot with Nikon due to what I considered superior technical specs. Now I have borrowed a 5diii from a friend and have been very impressed by how the thing handles and the look of the colours. I know we must simply choose the tool that works for us but would you mind sharing why you have decided for one particular system and if your decision would still be the same if you were not heavily invested in it. Thanks so much!


Aug 19, 2016 at 05:38 PM
elkhornsun
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


I shoot 100% RAW so the color does not matter to me. I have been shooting with Nikon cameras of late but often have second shooters using Canon cameras and I blend them all together.

I switched from Nikon to Canon in 2005 to get better high ISO performance. I switched back to Nikon for the 2008 season to get a pro grade full frame DSLR and to have the use of the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8 lenses as I disliked the image quality from the 16-35mm f2.8 II lens and the lack of consistent autofocus accuracy with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 (many people I knew had switched to using the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens).

I like a full frame camera combined with a crop camera. The full frame camera I use with wide to normal focal length lenses and the crop camera I use with the 70-200mm lens (for the ceremony and the reception). The D5 and D500 provide at this time the best low light autofocus and high ISO performance as a duo although the Canon 1d X MK II is also a fantastic camera.

In terms of the lenses for wedding photography I think that the Nikon 14-24mm and 24-70mm are better than their Canon counterparts. I also love using the Nikon 105mm f/2.0 DC (defocus control) lens. Some photographers try to get the DC effect by using a tilt shift lens but it is much easier and the results are much better with the 105mm DC lens. I also greatly prefer using a 105mm focal length instead of any 85mm lens with a full frame camera.

Another area where I favor Nikon is with regard to its flash system that is more advanced than that of Canon. In difficult lighting situations I shot my last Canon wedding with the 1d Mark IV and a Nikon D3 and two speedlights. The shots with the Canon were good 85% of the time and with the Nikon combination it was 100%. It was a very difficult situation but with the Nikon images my post processing time was going to be a lot less.

I do prefer the Canon cameras' menu structure and some aspects of the Canon exposure metering for backlit subjects. Canon is what I would recommend for people doing wildlife or sports photography or planning to make extensive use of tilt shift lenses.



Aug 19, 2016 at 06:17 PM
LeeSimms
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


I really like the Canon radio wireless flash system, and their zooms. We have 5 430RT's and 5 600RT's and it's a great system. Not perfect, but close. I also really like their 24-70L II (we own two), 16-35L IS, and who doesn't love the 135L?

Two of my associates shoot Nikon so I edit the files all the time. I like what I see, but not enough to switch. And when we shoot a job together I can't believe how loud those shutters are ... and how stone age those speedlight are. But Nikon's got the super value 1.8 primes — all are great — and the D750 has some amazing tricks up its sleeve.

In the film years, I shot Nikon — F4s and 8008s's (three bodies). When digital came, Canon seemed to take it so seriously, so early on. Nikon of course caught up, but I had a pretty big rig by then.

5DmkIII x2,
7DmkII x2
80D x2
16-35L IS
24-70L II x2
50L
85 USM
100L
135L
70-200L 2.8 II (big white)
70-200L 4 IS (little white)
10-22 ef-S
60 Macro ef-S
40mm pancake

I think you can make a lot of money with whatever system you choose — Nikon, Canon or Sony ... or ... Rollei. It's not the camera after all.



Aug 19, 2016 at 09:19 PM
BSPhotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


If I didn't already have glass and other bodies, the Pentax K1 looks pretty darn attractive--especially for the price/build/function.


Aug 19, 2016 at 09:37 PM
IrishDino
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


Canon

Considered switching to Nikon a few times based solely on what I read on the internet. I went to the camera store to actually buy a D750, but couldn't for the life of me figure out how to use it (manual mode, RAW, etc). That was the end of that.

Then the thought of switching to Sony entered my head, but the cost of a comparable Sony kit (having to buy most/all of it new) was totally unreasonable at $25k+

If I ever go out of wedding photography id most likely sell it all and go with a small Sony and two primes for travel.



Aug 20, 2016 at 05:50 AM
glort
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?



I only had Nikon for my 35mm Film bodies.
When Digital came along, Canon seemed to have the more affordable and better value for money product for MY needs so I switched camps. That was about 2000.
Since then, I have not had sufficient reason to change.

I'm no where near as gear tech savvy as most shooters on boards it seems but I have NEVER seen where switching brands will give me any of the following benefits :

*Improve my skill, talent or knowledge of my craft or the artistic or technical merit thereof.
* Get higher average spends from my clients,
* Get more clients,
* Get clients to hire me more often,
* Get more prestigious clients or more desirable work,
* Improve my lead generation or closure rate,
* Make my work and/ or reputation better known,
* Be a better long term investment in changing my systems, workflows and knowledge of the system I use now,
* Solve any problems I have with my current system, mainly because I don't have any.
* Feature any accessories I want to satisfy a particular need I have now,
* Offer comparable equipment and accessories at cheaper prices,
* Give me any business advantage over my competitors,
* Take any picture in their advertising or promotional material I couldn't have taken on a film camera I had 20 years ago,
*Increase the profitability and overall net worth of my business,


* And most importantly,
changing brands will not turn me into a rock start photographer

With these facts and realities in mind, I will continue to use the same brand I do now until the situation changes.
When there are real and valuable benefits to my business by switching allegiances and my accountant supports my reasoning, then I'll do that the minute I see those advantages.

To me, whether the camera or the brand I am using now is technically superior or not is irrelevant. As long as it meets and exceedes the expectations of my customers and they are happy with the work I give them, then it is good enough.

As the great majority of people I see switching back and forth between brands do it more for reasons of technical superiority rather than improvement to their business or bottom line I'll stick with what I have until clear and demonstrable reasons are evident.



Aug 20, 2016 at 07:06 AM
Mark_L
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


Aside from more pixels, Canon's sensors are stuck in 2007

Canon wins on radio flashes. Don't care about flash system since I use godox now though.

Canon's lens line is more complete (ie. is without 20+ year old lenses in the lineup.) Not sure how much I care though since Sigma and Tamron are available for both and are better than OEM fast primes now. Only a matter of time when they match the zooms.

Nikon's service is abysmal with claiming impact damage to everything. Big quality failures in recent years and releasing 'fixed' versions of the camera as new versions hammering used values.

Everything else is a wash really



Aug 20, 2016 at 08:11 AM
sherijohnson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


I haven't actually tried Nikon but that is because I am so invested in Canon and I am happy with the equipment and the results. I am going to be keeping a watch on this new Canon 5dIV


Aug 20, 2016 at 08:36 AM
level1photog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


Wow sir, you are dead on right how I feel about all these gears head right now.

Too many photographers like to switch from one brand to another because of technical superiority of Sony/Nikon over Canon. I don't think my clients will notice any differences in perceivable quality from me switching over. Yes, it will make life a little with better features, but even my entry full frame Canon camera from 4 years ago still produce amazing images if you have good lighting, and editing.

You are right that I'd rather invest in education and be better at my craft, get more business, and provide better service than buying whatever the best out there.

glort wrote:
I only had Nikon for my 35mm Film bodies.
When Digital came along, Canon seemed to have the more affordable and better value for money product for MY needs so I switched camps. That was about 2000.
Since then, I have not had sufficient reason to change.

I'm no where near as gear tech savvy as most shooters on boards it seems but I have NEVER seen where switching brands will give me any of the following benefits :

*Improve my skill, talent or knowledge of my craft or the artistic or technical merit thereof.
* Get higher average spends from my clients,
...Show more




Aug 20, 2016 at 11:51 AM
elkhornsun
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


To me a pro is someone who gets results regardless of the situation, which with the vast majority of weddings means shooting in very bad lighting situations and still getting sharp in focus pictures with noise well controlled.

All the cameras have noise controlled but the autofocus performance still varies, and in particular with the second tier cameras. I expect a Nikon D5 or a Canon 1d X Mark II at $6000 to perform well.

But in 2001 when I first started using digital SLR cameras for wedding and event photography it was a very different story. Initially the advantage was with Nikon cameras until Canon released the 5D which produced good quality images most of the time at ISO 3200. My Nikon D2x was a crop camera and good for ISO 800 and not full frame.

In 2008 when the D3 and 14-24mm and 24-70mm lenses were introduced by Nikon most Canon shooters were having a great deal of problems with the durability of their cameras and things like the mirror falling out of 5D cameras and otherwise only having APS-H crop cameras, and with having to continually send lenses back to Canon for recalibration.

I found it great to have the 5:4 in camera crop mode for pictures that were going into prints as it saved a lot of time in post processing. Having accurate white balance metering shot to shot also saves a lot of time after the wedding. With more faith in the autofocus system I take a lot fewer insurance shots. With higher ISO I get more options on shutter speed for avoiding subject motion blur and the flash does not have to put out as much light so I can shorter recycle times and fewer missed shots waiting for the capacitors to charge.

As I shoot with Nikon now and most of my second photographers shoot with various Canon cameras I see first hand the end results after a wedding in terms of autofocus accuracy, flash exposure accuracy, white balance accuracy, and more subtle aspects like how skin tones are rendered. And there are difference in how colors are rendered by the two systems and I find Canon to be like shooting with Velvia chrome film and Nikon to be more like Kodachrome, which is neither good nor bad but a matter of personal taste.

Something often overlooked with regard to mirrorless cameras besides making less noise with no mirror slap, they have the electronic viewfinder that amplifies the ambient light so even in very low light situations I can see in advance that the shot is framed properly. With a DSLR I have to shot, chimp, and then maybe reshoot if possible, and often reshooting is not an option at weddings. Autofocus is also better with mirrorless cameras as the focal plane is the sensor and not a mirror so no need to calibrate and have a lens like the 70-200mm only at critical sharpness at one end of its zoom range and at a given camera to subject distance.



Aug 20, 2016 at 01:19 PM
flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


WinterSorbeck wrote:
During the past 10 or so years I have shot with Nikon due to what I considered superior technical specs. Now I have borrowed a 5diii from a friend and have been very impressed by how the thing handles and the look of the colours. I know we must simply choose the tool that works for us but would you mind sharing why you have decided for one particular system and if your decision would still be the same if you were not heavily invested in it. Thanks so much!


Canon or Nikon? Hmmmm?

Neither.

Canikon are dinosaurs. Until they're dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century they will continue to ignore what many working photographers want and make the same old crap over and over. Why can't I get a full frame "pro" camera with a tilty flippy screen for low shooting positions? Why no EVF option? No live histogram? IBIS or just stabilised prime lenses? Full silent shutters when looking through the viewfinder? etc.....

There are several other companies innovating and pushing boundaries in size, usability and functionality. Sigma and to a lesser extent Tamron are making lenses the equal or better than Canikon so I don't need to just buy from those two brands. If I really need a Canon lens I can just use it on my Sony or Leica with an adaptor. The Pentax K1 is a brilliant camera at a fraction of what the 5D3 costs. The Fuji XT2 looks to be rivalling the 5D3 in tracking focus abilities at half the cost and a third of the weight backed up by an absolutely stellar lens range. Sony is releasing AF lenses with Otus like image quality. Hell, the best body to attach the fab Canon tilt shift lenses to isn't even a Canon.

Canon and Nikon will both trudge forward with as little innovation as possible releasing new cameras with incremental upgrades printed in capitals so you think they're revolutionary.

The Canons and Nikons are like the Toyotas of the photography world. Solid, reliable and ubiquitous. But cutting edge they aint. If you really want technologically superior you'll need to broaden your horizons a bit.

Plus what Glort said.

Gordon



Aug 20, 2016 at 03:50 PM
Mark_L
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


flash wrote:
Canon or Nikon? Hmmmm?

Neither.

Canikon are dinosaurs. Until they're dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century they will continue to ignore what many working photographers want and make the same old crap over and over. Why can't I get a full frame "pro" camera with a tilty flippy screen for low shooting positions? Why no EVF option? No live histogram? IBIS or just stabilised prime lenses? Full silent shutters when looking through the viewfinder? etc.....

There are several other companies innovating and pushing boundaries in size, usability and functionality. Sigma and to a lesser extent Tamron are making lenses the equal
...Show more

Nailed it. I won't be upgrading when the D900 or whatever comes around and I only own one Nikon lens now and no Nikon flashes. I have little sympathy for their declining sales when they think just repackaging a new sensor in a tweaked camera body justifies me dropping thousands each time and lens/flash prices keep skyrocketing.



Aug 20, 2016 at 04:59 PM
hardlyboring
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


After editing tens of thousands of files from pretty much all cameras no one is beating Nikon or Sony at this point.
Just how it is from a pure file standpoint.
But really who cares. I get crappy files from Canon, Nikon, Sony etc. so it has little to do with the cameras at this point. If you can take photos it basically comes down to personal preference on ergonomics or other factors like focusing systems, configuration options, video options if necessary, etc.



Aug 20, 2016 at 11:12 PM
nolaguy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


I agree in spirit with a lot of the comments suggesting new models or the "as of today" strong points of the respective brands are rarely worth switching camps or upgrading to the latest and "greatest".

What does get my attention are meaningful advances in:

-- Sensor sensitivity and the camera's ability to gulp light. Devices that can see and focus in the dark appeal to me - which is weird because most of my work involves studio strobes;

-- Focus precision itself;

-- Dynamic range.

That's pretty much it. Though I do admit the D810 has turned me into a pixel slut. Cropping deep makes me feel like I'm capable of satellite imagery



Aug 21, 2016 at 12:09 AM
glort
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


Mark_L wrote:
I have little sympathy for their declining sales when they think just repackaging a new sensor in a tweaked camera body


I would gaurante that is exactly what Canon do with their printers.
I would be astounded if the last 3 different model printers I have bought over 5 years plus don't have the exact same guts in them. 2 of them had the same cartridge but with a different chip to make them incompatible..... unless you bought some of the cheap carts and took the chip off and replaced them.
:0)

The only difference on the newer models would be the Chips and Carts with some more pre planned obsolescence thrown in. They have now effectively made the things limited life. There is a thing in the printer firmwear called the waste ink counter. It effectively counts the number of prints you have made and when the service life they want you to have number is reached, the ink pad must be full according to canon so the machine needs a " Service" which costs several times the value of the printer.
This is of course the exact same thing as with the ink where I bought the last printers about 6 weeks ago for $90 delivered but another set of carts is presently $125.

Of course now people are sick of being ripped off on ink, they like me are going more to the after market Inks. The way canon get round this is to turn a perfectly good machine off after they deem you have used it enough and force you into replacing it.

I recently burnt through 2 brand new printers in one week printing a T&I job. That's OK, they can go back and be " Fixed" under warranty and god help them if they give me some shit about the after market products breaking the machine.

They always have to keep something up their sleeves and lets face it, what could be better to drive camera ( or phone or other electronic) sales than releasing a new model. I'm surprised we don't get an update to the same cam every year like car manufacturers do their models.

The 2017 model is better than the 2016 model because it now has Round headlights instead of square ones and there is 3 new paint colours. Of course all new models were pretty much finalised in design 5 years ago but that's an aside. ...







Aug 21, 2016 at 12:17 AM
glort
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


nolaguy wrote:
What does get my attention are meaningful advances in:

-- Sensor sensitivity and the camera's ability to gulp light. Devices that can see and focus in the dark appeal to me - which is weird because most of my work involves studio strobes;

-- Focus precision itself;

-- Dynamic range.

That's pretty much it. Though I do admit the D810 has turned me into a pixel slut. Cropping deep makes me feel like I'm capable of satellite imagery


The way I see it, most of the advantages of camera's these days appeal to the shooter rather than the client. Granted, not every pic is taken for a Client but to me as a pro, that only lessens the appeal of a lot of new models others crave for.

So much is made of Focus.
I shot a soccer game last nigh under pathetic lighting even for the player let along taking pics.
My ancient 7D was missing some focus so I went to manual focus. Wasn't so long ago that was part and parcel of the game but now it seems that a camera is useless unless it can track a .223 projectile in 1 Lux of light and have the ISO range to allow a 1/1000th shutter speed at that light level.

As a photographer that is client and business focussed rather than technical perfection driven, there hasn't been much come along in the last 10 years that really benefits my client.
I have no need to shoot in pitch blackness, I don't have a lot of problems with focus, noise or pretty much any of the popular issues people talk about.

As the camera is the tool and I feel I should be it's master not rely on it's ability's over my own shortage of skill, when I do run into problems, I either use my knowledge to adapt and overcome or I simply work to what I can do.

As Dirty Harry said, " Man has GOT to know his limitations" . I'd suggest that also applies to gear and a man has to know how to adapt and over come as well.

It's more than obvious even with a miracle machine that could produce any camera anyone wanted, there would never be a perfect camera because even when the thing drove or flew out to the subject and took all the pics, edited them perfectly and uploaded them or printed it's own album, there would always be something else someone wanted the thing to do and would bitch about it not doing well enough.

In the end it would be like " I don't want to have a camera or have to buy one and lenses or worry about a website. I just want a million dollars a year to magically appear in my bank account without having to have a camera or a business".



Aug 21, 2016 at 12:35 AM
Bloom
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


Canon.


Aug 22, 2016 at 11:45 AM
taran
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


Sony A7s with NIkon Ai-s lenses. Solved most of my wedding "problems".


Aug 22, 2016 at 12:37 PM
Ziffl3
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


hardlyboring wrote:
After editing tens of thousands of files from pretty much all cameras no one is beating Nikon or Sony at this point.
Just how it is from a pure file standpoint.
But really who cares. I get crappy files from Canon, Nikon, Sony etc. so it has little to do with the cameras at this point. If you can take photos it basically comes down to personal preference on ergonomics or other factors like focusing systems, configuration options, video options if necessary, etc.


digging a little deeper.... when editing is complete. do the files themselves say what camera body it was shot on?

The images that are delivered to the client..... do you see a difference between canon/nikon/sony/fuji?

My experience says no on differences delivered to customer.

It is more important 'how' the image was taken: exposure, composition .... etc.

-Mark




Aug 22, 2016 at 01:00 PM
flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 2016: Canon or Nikon?


Ziffl3 wrote:
digging a little deeper.... when editing is complete. do the files themselves say what camera body it was shot on?

The images that are delivered to the client..... do you see a difference between canon/nikon/sony/fuji?

My experience says no on differences delivered to customer.

It is more important 'how' the image was taken: exposure, composition .... etc.

-Mark



I'm not Doug but I own a lot of cameras.

I do think the files from different cameras are different but can be made to be very close.

I think from the customers point of view that it makes no real difference what brand camera we use.

However I think there's a big difference in how easy it is to work on files from OUR point of view. For example Fuji files take a long long long time to import into Lightroom. Twice as long as 42MP Sony files. But once there they need very little work at all. Sony files import quickly but need the most work, for me to get decent skin tones. Lots of work needed in the yellow/red channel with skin. To me, Nikon files look a bit better out of the gate than Canon but both end up fine with a bit of effort. Leica recently switched from CCD to CMOS so there's a lot of different stuff going on. SL files are like Canikons but the M9 is either beautiful or a nightmare depending on the lighting. I like Pentax DNGs the best. Very easy to work with. Robust and with little bias. They're the most *neutral* files I've seen.

As always I think our camera choices are made for us not for our clients. Nothing wrong with that.

Gordon



Aug 22, 2016 at 04:43 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Wedding Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.