p.2 #1 · Brand Hopping: Is it really that weird to be camera promiscuous?
I'm not sure if it's a matter of what can't be done with my existing system versus how a different experience my change my output. The difference in UI, ergonomics, and color rendering means shooting and editing will be different, sometimes better.
That said, the autofocus, resolution, and sharpness of my current kit is hard to walk away from.
chez wrote:
Totally agree. Unless you can identify something that cannot be done using a Sony system…why would you want to venture into another system with totally different cameras / lenses / UI / processing etc…
p.2 #3 · Brand Hopping: Is it really that weird to be camera promiscuous?
christopher_icu wrote:
This resonates.
My Sony cameras = unparalleled resolution and autofocus and reliability in tough conditions
Nikon Z8 = Never held a better *feeling* and more versatile camera
Nikon Zf = the most tactile, underrated, solidly built, retro relevant, affordable and capable
Canon 5D III = Best colors and image character I've ever seen, and the easiest to use UI
Leica Q2 Ghost edition = most beautiful camera I've ever held with the best lens I've ever used.
Yep - I think we're on the same path, my brother.
Honestly though - 70% of the time I grab the A1 II. Great lenses, AF, speed, IQ, reliability - the whole 9 yards. I could be happy with just my A1 II and A9 III but have fun enjoying the attributes of the other cameras at the same time.
And like @Bruce Marriner - there are others I'd love to have a go with that I haven't committed to.
Would be awesome to play with an X2D II 100C for a bit or a Sigma BF but I know I'd gravitate back to Sony anyway.
p.2 #4 · Brand Hopping: Is it really that weird to be camera promiscuous?
If you have the finances, you have the time and you have the desire then go do what ever you want. Personally if I was in that position I wouldn't care about what others think. Have fun!
p.2 #5 · Brand Hopping: Is it really that weird to be camera promiscuous?
christopher_icu wrote:
I'm not sure if it's a matter of what can't be done with my existing system versus how a different experience my change my output. The difference in UI, ergonomics, and color rendering means shooting and editing will be different, sometimes better.
More likely, the fixation on having lots of different gear will distract you from what makes photography better.
For example, if you have solid experience with one brand/model, the “color rendering” business starts to seem a little silly, since you’ll figure out how to get the color quality you want with the brand you have after you work consistently with its files.
(I use two brands, Fujifilm and Canon. You could not tell which system I used based on the colors of the final images.)
I get the feeling that you are sort of looking for people to tell you to go ahead and buy a whole lot of different camera stuff because it is fun to buy a lot of camera stuff. If you want to do that, feel free. No one is stopping you. No need to ask us for justification for your purchasing preferences. :-)
On the other hand if you want us to tell you that this will make you a better photographer, there’s not much evidence at all that this is the case and some pretty strong arguments that it is just a distraction.
(If you were a violinist, would it make sense to you that buying a new violin every year or switching among a whole bunch of different violins would make you a better violinist? If so, why is it that the best violinists seek out and then stick with one excellent instrument?)
p.2 #6 · Brand Hopping: Is it really that weird to be camera promiscuous?
I’m pretty confident about what motivates me to use different cameras/brands for different purposes, so definitely not looking for permission to approach my work this way.
Just investigating what drives the judgment I encounter in photography meet-ups amongst *some* photographers who are loyal to one brand.
My takeaway is that they believe that they can get their camera or brand to achieve the same thing that any other camera or brand can achieve, so if someone is brand hopping, they chalk it up to either trust-fund-baby behavior or a skills issue.
gdanmitchell wrote:
More likely, the fixation on having lots of different gear will distract you from what makes photography better.
For example, if you have solid experience with one brand/model, the “color rendering” business starts to seem a little silly, since you’ll figure out how to get the color quality you want with the brand you have after you work consistently with its files.
(I use two brands, Fujifilm and Canon. You could not tell which system I used based on the colors of the final images.)
I get the feeling that you are sort of looking for people to tell you to go ahead and buy a whole lot of different camera stuff because it is fun to buy a lot of camera stuff. If you want to do that, feel free. No one is stopping you. No need to ask us for justification for your purchasing preferences. :-)
On the other hand if you want us to tell you that this will make you a better photographer, there’s not much evidence at all that this is the case and some pretty strong arguments that it is just a distraction.
(If you were a violinist, would it make sense to you that buying a new violin every year or switching among a whole bunch of different violins would make you a better violinist? If so, why is it that the best violinists seek out and then stick with one excellent instrument?)...Show more →
p.2 #7 · Brand Hopping: Is it really that weird to be camera promiscuous?
TBH, some questions might better be answered in a "psych" forum than a photo forum. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." That gets to the why someone else is bothered by "my" approach to something. Or why I am bothered that they are bothered?
Maybe that's the guy who felt robbed by being in JV not varsity sports or that was pissed that of the circle of friend, he wasn' t the one with the 10 point higher SAT score.
p.2 #8 · Brand Hopping: Is it really that weird to be camera promiscuous?
christopher_icu wrote:
Just investigating what drives the judgment I encounter in photography meet-ups amongst *some* photographers who are loyal to one brand.
My takeaway is that they believe that they can get their camera or brand to achieve the same thing that any other camera or brand can achieve, so if someone is brand hopping, they chalk it up to either trust-fund-baby behavior or a skills issue.
You are mixing up two issues here, I think.
One is about brand loyalty, the other is about the value of frequently switching among different cameras and brands or choosing to own just about all brands.
Regarding “brand loyalty,” some people think of their brand choice almost like supporting their favorite sports team: they believe that their brand is always best, that other brands are inferior and deficient, and that any critical word about their brand is a sort of heresy that makes them angry.
Some just are very comfortable with their brand and don’t see any particular advantage over the long term in switching. (This doesn’t necessarily mean that they believe other brands are inferior, just that they don’t feel that the differences are particularly significant and that their brand is just as good as the others.)
I don’t think that is why most people stick with one brand for long periods of time.
One reason to stick with a brand once you choose one is that all of the other accessories that you rely on (which largely means lenses) will usually continue to be compatible. I used Canon for more than two decades, not because I think that Canon has always remained superior to the other options, but because it works really well and I have been able to bring lenses along as I moved through four bodies over the years.
A second reason for sticking with a brand (that isn’t about “team loyalty”) is that we develop habits and instincts based on the way that brand operates, and those instincts make us better photographers since we can operate more quickly and intuitively in situations where that matters. Anyone who has moved among brands (I have ) can tell you that it can slow you down when focus, zoom, and aperture rings move in opposite directions, or when you have to find a setting that is in a new and unexpected place.
This does not mean no brand changes ever. It just means that the threshold for switching is higher than “that camera looks cool!”
The other issue, which is NOT about brand loyalty at all, has to do with the pluses and minuses of switching frequently among different brands.
There’s no correlation that I’ve ever been able to see between the quality of a photographer’s work and which brand he or she uses. I’ve had prints in exhibits where work created with every major brand (and format) was hung side-by-side, and no one is able to tell what brand was used. The differences between the photographers’ work came down to their personal styles and interpretations — how they “see,” not what tools they use.
So, regarding this second issue, the first response is that there is no difference in the quality or nature of the work that can be attributed to brand choice, and hardly any instances in which moving from one model to another within a brand would make such a difference. (The only exceptions I can think of would be true edge cases or the addition of some specialized lens that is only available on one platform.)
The second response is that if we can’t see differences among photographs made with different brands, there’s not much of an argument that gratuitous brand switching will make photographs better. What makes photographs better is working on becoming a better photographer — a lifelong task. Beyond that, as mentioned above, there are literally downsides to being in the field with gear you aren’t fully familiar with.
NOTE: I’m trying to treat your posts seriously and reply with some respect, but you’re pushing the wrong buttons when you start to personalize those who disagree with your perspective and when you demean their photography generically.
