I mainly shoot with two 5d's and now i just sold one and was contemplating sooo hard on the 5dII..with everything great about that camera, it just didn't convince me enough for the "upgrades". Soo for next year I'll be shooting with a d700 setup coupled with a 70-200 2.8 and the 5d coupled with a 24 1.4 & 50 1.4..
I'll let you guys know how it works..=)
::conrad::
I just swap my Canon MarkIII to couple Nikon D3's. I love the feel of the camera and Nikon zooms ROCK! I am keeping my 5D with my Canon primes though.
Now that I moved to Nikon, however, I find myself that all my workflow needs to change. I was so used to Canon files that it was a piece of cake for me to make them POP. Nikon files are totally different. You can make them pop in PP, but you need a totally different approach. I hope I am making sense here.
Few days ago, I shot an event I had my Nikon gear and the 5D + 85L. After I loaded everything to the LR it was really hard to work with different type of files. I ended up processing them separately for each camera. What worked for Canon well, didn't seem to work for Nikon and vice versa. So if I was to hire a second, and would want them to match my workflow, I would only hire a photographer with Nikon camera or just give them one of my own.
Both systems are good though, can't go wrong with either. If I wasn't one of those guys who buys gear just to try something new, I would never buy Nikon. Economically it doesn't make sense. But if money no issue, why not play with new toys. Oh, I want more toys now!
pixelcharm wrote:
Ray's recent thread about a 2nd shooter needed (with the strict requirement of 5D or 5DMK2) got me thinking.
I notice most of the pro wedding/people photographers on this board seem to shoot Canon. Am I at a disadvantage for shooting Nikon? I don't do anything besides People and Landscapes at the moment (with desires to get into Weddings down the road). I have a pretty good setup in Nikon (D700, 24-70, 70-200, 50 and 85 1.4, 105 2.5, etc) and I have had no regrets so far. All of my friends shoot Canon as well, so I could easily pawn some nice glass (one of them has all the L primes up to 500mm).
I guess I'm just wondering if it makes sense to switch. I would hate to be the odd man out with Nikon and I know I'll have to do a lot of 2nd shooting before I start shooting weddings on my own and well I would just hate to be discriminated against for shooting Nikon when everyone else shoots Canon.
Is this actually something I should look into or am I just being paranoid?
For what its worth I never see my self shooting Sports or Wildlife.
Nikon shooters were at a disadvantage until Nikon moved to CMOS sensors. This is when the Nikon digital bodies finally matched the Canons... Now when people ask me about the Nikon vs Canon question, I relate this analogy: Its like choosing between a Mercedes and a BMW. They're both great, they both get you there. But they just have a different "feel", and its really an intangible thing. I suggest for someone struggling with the issue to go handle the bodies, look through the viewfinders, press the buttons and browse the menus. One will just "feel" better to you, and that's the one to go with.
FWIW I have a strict requirement of my second shooters as well: That they have capable gear that they are comfortable operating. Nothing else matters.
I have to agree with everything said thus far... both the Canon and Nikon systems are so comprehensive that at this point you really can't go wrong. I think Canon may have had an advantage for a little while if only because they seemed ot have good cameras at all the major price points, but when Nikon released the d200 a few years ago and finally had a good mid-range camera it was a much fairer fight. I do agree that Canon's 5D has probably given them a huge advantage in the wedding market with its FF and price, but again.. things are changing.
Ultimately, they are both great systems and light years ahead of what else is out there (although I do think Sony is beginning to make some nice things).
Canon and Nikon color profiles are totally different. I wouldn't hire an opposite camp shooter for only that reason. Unless they had exceptional work, and even then sometimes the additional PP work is simply not worth it.
What's more important than brand/color profile however, is that the shooter uses a pro body/full-frame. And more than that, that the person shoots their own weddings and originates their own clients. I'm going to go out on a limb here and mention that in my experience the pro body/FF shooters are more consistent between their portfolio heroes and their day-to-day wedding heroes. And that those who primary their own weddings are truly going to 2nd as a 2nd should, ie NOT shoot what I'm shooting or try to create the same images that I am. And they know best how to interact directly with clients.
mauriceramirez wrote:
Canon and Nikon color profiles are totally different. I wouldn't hire an opposite camp shooter for only that reason. Unless they had exceptional work, and even then sometimes the additional PP work is simply not worth it.
What's more important than brand/color profile however, is that the shooter uses a pro body/full-frame. And more than that, that the person shoots their own weddings and originates their own clients. I'm going to go out on a limb here and mention that in my experience the pro body/FF shooters are more consistent between their portfolio heroes and their day-to-day wedding heroes. And that those who primary their own weddings are truly going to 2nd as a 2nd should, ie NOT shoot what I'm shooting or try to create the same images that I am. And they know best how to interact directly with clients.
Accurate color is accurate color, no matter what camera it comes from. And not all pro bodies are full frame nor do they need to be to produce professional images.
1. Getting accurate color for each indeed requires different workflow. A LR preset that works great on a set of Canon images might not work as well or at all, on a Nikon set.
2. My differentiation of WAS lumping pro bodies and FF cameras together, since *in my experience* those who shot with the (relatively inexpensive) cropped D200, D300, 20D, 30D, 40D, typically *did* shoot less professional images and had less experience than those with the D700, D3, 1-series, 5D. Yeah I know there are exceptions, but they are exceptional. And yeah I know there's a lot of FF/pro body shooters that are NOT putting out pro images blah blah blah. But a lot of high-end 2nd shooter-hiring photographers will admit the same thing; if you're holding an open call its just easier to just have a brand+pro/FF body requirement from the get-go.
If your main camera is available off-the-shelf at a Walmart what does that tell me about how much you're invested in your photography?
Why do most of the top WP's, WPPI speakers et al, use 5D's and not 40D's?
1. Getting accurate color for each indeed requires different workflow. A LR preset that works great on a set of Canon images might not work as well or at all, on a Nikon set.
2. My differentiation of WAS lumping pro bodies and FF cameras together, since *in my experience* those who shot with the (relatively inexpensive) cropped D200, D300, 20D, 30D, 40D, typically *did* shoot less professional images and had less experience than those with the D700, D3, 1-series, 5D. Yeah I know there are exceptions, but they are exceptional. And yeah I know there's a lot of FF/pro body shooters that are NOT putting out pro images blah blah blah. But a lot of high-end 2nd shooter-hiring photographers will admit the same thing; if you're holding an open call its just easier to just have a brand+pro/FF body requirement from the get-go.
If your main camera is available off-the-shelf at a Walmart what does that tell me about how much you're invested in your photography?
Why do most of the top WP's, WPPI speakers et al, use 5D's and not 40D's?
I was referring to the 1D series, like the 1D2, 1D3. Crop sensor, pro body, pro results in the right hands... A FF sensor does not make a photographer a professional, and a professional camera body (Pro AF, weather sealing, dual card slots, pro build etc) doesn't have to be FF either.
On the color, one of my second photographers uses Nikon and another uses Canon. It is inconsequential to me, as I ask that they deliver color corrected JPGs to me. I've never looked at one and thought, Oh there's that "Nikon" color, or there's that "Canon" color, etc... The final color is either good or it isn't.
mauriceramirez wrote:
Canon and Nikon color profiles are totally different. I wouldn't hire an opposite camp shooter for only that reason. Unless they had exceptional work, and even then sometimes the additional PP work is simply not worth it.
What's more important than brand/color profile however, is that the shooter uses a pro body/full-frame. And more than that, that the person shoots their own weddings and originates their own clients. I'm going to go out on a limb here and mention that in my experience the pro body/FF shooters are more consistent between their portfolio heroes and their day-to-day wedding heroes. And that those who primary their own weddings are truly going to 2nd as a 2nd should, ie NOT shoot what I'm shooting or try to create the same images that I am. And they know best how to interact directly with clients.
Hi Maurice-- Sorry to step on the thread here. But I've shot Kodaks, Nikons and a Canon. I've also shot all 3 in a single wedding. Though I admit color interpretation to be somewhat different, the notion that they would require a "different work flow" I cannot agree. I've found WB to be a bigger determining factor than any specific camera. Additionally, the idea that a "pre-set" would be usable for each lighting set-up really has me puzzled.
I wouldn't say you were going out on a limb, with your statement. But, again, I've not found that to be the case. People's attitudes during an interview will tell you more about their motivation than will their camera equipment. In my experience, about the only thing I've found a camera tell me is how big their credit line to be.
About the only thing I look for in equipment is a "shooting vests." I stay away from anyone who comes to an interview in one
The D700 with the 24-70 and 70-200 is as good a wedding combination as you will find in my opinion.
The high ISO capabilities make the wedding photographers job much easier.
The higher megapixel cameras have files that are too large and the added photo detail is really not required for wedding photos..again my opinion.
I could not imagine a good reason why anyone with the gear mentioned above would consider switching to Canon.
