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.
While I agree wtih a lot of what you say here, but to say What's more important than brand/color profile however, is that the shooter uses a pro body/full-frame. is ridiculous. It's like saying cause uncle bob bought a 5D he's going to be more consistent than aunt marge with her rebel. This might be Bob's first day and Marge has 100k shots under her belt.
I know quite a number of wedding photogs shoot the 'middle' bodies (20/30/40/50 and 100/200/70/80/90) and are very consistent, reliable, good with clients, etc.
There is a higher likley hood that a person that spends the bux on a 1D/D3 is more serious, more experienced, more skilled but it's not really a hard and fast rule. A guy that second shot for me had a 1D3 and 5D for backup. He was entering the field and read up on what to buy. Smart decision yes, but back then he was green.
mauriceramirez wrote:
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?
-m
Maurice,
mad respect for you man, but I know that Ed shoots with a couple of 40D's. Just because you kinda got a consumer equipment doesn't mean one didn't invest much in to the business...Maybe they invested in other parts, like seminars, school, marketing, hiring a good cpa, etc.
I am currently testing out 5DII and D700 on rental to possibly replace my 30Ds. The 5DII is slightly winning by the smallest of margins. Both cameras are fantastic machines. Where one is strong the other is slightly less so and vice versa, to the point its is a fairly even playing field. But this has been the biggest test...
I have taken photos of the same scene with all three cameras and shown non-photographers (family, friends). They are more like my customers. They can't tell the difference!
Back to the thread and switching between Canon and Nikon: given the economic situation around the world, I think the Canon or Nikon argument is a neither here or there. Yes for my sake I would love a full frame camera again but does it make business sense right now to upgrade or switch to same brand or other brand camera, full frame or not?! Not sure. Just my opinion.
Conradp04 wrote:
Maurice,
mad respect for you man, but I know that Ed shoots with a couple of 40D's. Just because you kinda got a consumer equipment doesn't mean one didn't invest much in to the business...Maybe they invested in other parts, like seminars, school, marketing, hiring a good cpa, etc.
Conrad, if you read my post above I make that caveat "there are exceptions, but they are exceptional." and Ed was exactly who I had in mind. It's not a rule, you may be an exception, I'm not saying its a law of physics or anything, but the exceptions are exactly that. I'm no gearhead. But when you have a hundred prosumers answering an ad with a 5% hit rate, one makes conclusions from the bell curve. And for the sake of practicality one has to whittle it down.
Btw Ed's moved on to the 1-series, which really proves my point. :-)
Unfortunately i am still DJing way more than I am shooting. That does let me see lots of working photogs. Here in NYC/Long Island I would say Nikon shooters outnumber canon shooters by about 3 to 1.
As noted by a previous poster, there are more Canon users on here, but There are other forums where you will find more Nikon shooter's. I switched from Canon a few years ago because I like the Nikon Flash system over Canon's. thomas
When people ask me about both systems, I tell them "Canon has great lenses; Nikon has great flashes. The rest is really up to you." I shoot Canon 5Ds. Why? Because my dad bought me a Rebel a few years ago, and I've bought all the lenses to go with it. So I'm sticking with Canon. But I drool over the D3 and D700 just like many other photographers. Both systems have pros and cons. It's too bad Nikon hasn't come out with more great primes- - they would be absolutely unstoppable.
Some people have said that both camera companies will always be coming out with better bodies, but lenses last forever -- go for the great lenses. But Nikon doesn't make crap lenses, so stick with your system. Nikon has some great stuff! I wouldn't switch if I was in your shoes.
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?
Sean and Mel Mclellan of mclellanstudio.com use 20 and 30d's only. Also, color and Lightroom pre-sets are two separate things. Certain light in a certain situation only has one color temperature that is accurate. It does not matter what camera you use even if it is a point and shoot. The accuracy of how it is perceived though, is dependent on the lens used and the camera.
We have a 24-105L that will not reproduce color very well, so I see what you mean.
Neil vN wrote:
What I find interesting here, is that this would exclude 1D mk3 shooters ?
It seems a *very* tight requirement if only 5D or 5Dii are allowed.
Wow, they wont allow a "Pro" camera, but a old 5D will be just fine?
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.
How about you and me join together and shoot weddings, haha. I'm also looking for someone willing to take me along, I don't want pay, I just want to shoot.
The thoughts you have posted are somewhat the same thoughts I have also, and also I'm a Nikon Guy.
Did you buy a 5DMk2 yet. I bet Brandon would give you a good deal.
;-)
Tom
Yeah, I finally got one, but i like it so much I might consider another! Seriously, I've really enjoyed my first week with it. Its going to be a remarkable tool.
I shot Nikon, but I rented a 5D with a 35L, and the skin tone seemed true with the 5D at high iso. With the D700 they got to yellow orangey looking. I don't shoot jpeg, i shoot raw, and that how they looked to me. So I made the decision to switch. Colors are bolder with Nikons, but seems more realistic with Canon. My 2 cents...
maybe most people said Canon image is better in producing portrait, so more people use Canon. But also see Nikon around and Nikon gives better flash system than Canon.
Horses for courses. I recently switched from Canon to Nikon. The reason was that I felt Nikon was going where I wanted and I couldn't see Canon going that way anytime soon. (I wanted a full frame pro body that was in my price range and a more logical flash system which didn't hide important features in menu systems.)
