High end wedding photograhers using Nikon Gear

<p>Hey gang,<br>

Whenever I search for photographers whose work I admire, I notice they all use Canon. I think Canon makes amazing gear but I'm looking for bloggers that use Nikon instead. I found planetneil.com and he's great plus a few others but I'm looking for many more photographers that use high end Nikon gear. I use a D700 with 24-70, 70-200, 50 1.4.<br>

I'm simply wanting to see really high end wedding photographers using the Nikon system and I'm sure there are tons out there so I'm hoping some of you all can steer my in the right direction.<br>

Any and all websites and blogs that discuss weddings, lighting, and Nikon gear would be much appreciated.<br>

thanks,<br>

Fred</p>

<p>I think he wants to get Nikon specific advice and write-ups from high-end photographers. Right now all he gets are from canon folks.</p>

<p>Does it really make the difference which camera brand you're using?<br>

I used to shoot bronica with quantum on top and dynalytes as the strobes. When went digital, I didn't like sb800 and still ended up using my quantums with dynalytes. Gear might be old but it does the job. Today, it is a mix of quntums and SB800 all depending on the job.<br>

Have a body of mine, crazy hobbiest, he currently own D80, D300, 5D, I lost track the amount of glass he has PER EACH brand... He swears that 5d produces better image Q when he prints on his home printer.<br>

Few photogs I work with use Canons, others use Nikons. When images go to lab for proof prints, they are color corrected and you wouldn't tell one from the other.<br>

IF HOWEVER, you're looking for talk about Nikon CLS, that is a different story.<br>

Somewhere on this site I read an article by a wedding photographer who uses 3-4 bodies with different lenses attached to them and they are mix of Nikon and Canon. It was an interesting article see if you can find it.<br>

Adam</p>

<p>Is there a reason why you need/want to find Nikon wedding photographers?</p>

<p>Marc Williams, who posts often on this forum, uses high end Nikon gear. David Wegwart, who also posts often here, uses high end Nikon gear. I don't see why it would make any difference in blogs about wedding photography or lighting, though.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how you define "high end photographer", but I use Nikon (currently, my main body is the D700), Nikon lenses, Nikon flashguns...but, not too long ago, I used Canon. I shot many weddings with the 20D, which was a fantastic camera.</p>

<p>I switched because we had a flood in our house (water hose under upstairs bathroom sink broke and deluged the house with water for about 4 hours while we were away) and my Canon was destroyed. But, my wife's little Nikon D40 survived the flood. I sold the Canon equipment that wasn't damaged and rebuilt my system with Nikon stuff.</p>

<p>I guess my point is some of us are brand loyal for a variety of reasons, and some of us just kinda happen upon a system that works for us. In fact, my first 35mm camera was a Canon AE-1. In the middle of my illustrious career, I was shooting Mamiya MF. I finished-up my film career with a Nikon F-100.</p>

<p>In all honesty? I like the tones of Canon digital better, but I love the ultra high ISO capabilities of the D700. Although the steep tone curve is driving me insane. Anyway, I do have a blog related to my business, but I keep my business separate from this forum.</p>

<p>BTW, I also use a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G. AMAZING lens.</p>

<p>Equipment brand isn't nearly as relevant as knowing how to use it.</p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>Finding wedding shooters who shoot Canon or Nikon might be a chore.</p>

<p>Here's an easier way to get a percentage and even names.</p>

<p>Watch NFL Football every chance you get..Might wanna record it so you can slow or pause the recording later.<br>

Now; all ya' gotta' do is count the number of WHITE lenses Vs The number of BLACK lenses.<br>

All those people on the sidelines probably qualify as using "High End"</p>

<p>Thanks Nadine, I was just look for a simple answer to the question and you provided it. I agree that camera brand shouldn't matter and it actually doesn't but I would prefer to see the blogs and websites of some well know Nikon wedding shooters around the country. I don't believe the question is that hard to understand.<br>

<br /> We are all at a certain level when it comes our photographic abilities and we're all wanting to constantly improve. Seeing the blogs and websites of some great wedding photographers that use Nikon gear is just a plus for me.<br>

That's all I'm looking for so help me out if you can.<br>

thanks,<br>

Fred</p>

<p>well asad, if you don't want to constantly improve perhaps that might not be the right approach to photography. complacency can lead to a lack of imagination.</p>

<p>For my, I am loyal to the equipment that gets the job done. As example, I have shot with both Canon & Nikon and I prefer Nikon. I have both a Mac and a PC- but I will only use the PC when forced to! That said, I would gladly "switch" if I thought one system would work better for me overall (I did switch from Canon to Nikon). I say this because while I love my Mac and I love my Nikon's, if I am bookmarking photography blog and/or website it's because I like the work being produced and I couldn't care less with what equipment was producing it? To ignore great work produced on "rival" equipment seems to be somewhat shortsighted. Now there are some blogs that I look at every now and then that aren't wedding related but the bloggers use Nikons:</p>

<p>Joe McNally - http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/<br /> Scott Kelby - http://www.scottkelby.com/</p>

<p>But I don't visit those blogs <em>because</em> they use Nikon. And there is always Nikonians.org for Nikon loyalists, but again, it's not a "wedding" blog/forum. But I think that is what everyone is trying to say... be inspired by other wedding photographers no matter what equipment is used. Visit "other" sites to discuss Nikon equipment in general. It is no different than Photo.net: one forum for wedding photographers, another for Nikon uses.</p>

<p>Well Fred, I am not sure I can help and I don't thnk it matters much.</p>

<p>Most, if not all, wedding photogs that have been around for more than ten years in the biz have likely changed some system at one time or other. I know I am on my second round with Nikon and have been through Yashica, Minolta, Nikon, Canon and now Nikon again.<br>

Quite honestly, people like Joe Bussink who used to shoot Nikon, have switched to Canon, and may have gone back again. Hard to say. I think he is in the high end category you speak of. Marc Williams is another who has switched around a fair bit for his wedding kit, and I think of his work as high end. I know some locals to me, who I think of as high end, that shoot Nikon (Travis Broxton comes to mind) too.</p>

<p>Ok, now here is my question, why did you want to see the work of Nikon shooters? Is it to try and emulate a look, figure out their kit, etc.?</p>

<p>OTOH, perhaps a switch to Canon is in your future?</p>

<p>;-)</p>

<p>Thanks David,<br>

Travis Broxton is an amazing photographer. I'm glad you pointed out his site to me because that's the reason for this thread. I guess to clarify, some of my favorite wedding photographers are Becker, Jasmine Star, Jessica Claire, David Jay, and Jeff Ascough. What I find alluring about their work is the extreme sharpness and clarity they get out of their gear which is usually Canon with prime L lenses. I'm trying to determine if their are Nikon shooters out there that have images as sharp as the ones from the photographers listed above.<br>

<br /> I have yet to find one yet. I'm assuming it's because Canon has better prime lenses. If you don't believe me, google some of the photographers mentioned above and look at the crispness and clarity of their images. I don't think Nikon gear can get images that sharp. I love the ergonomics and lay out of Nikon cameras and the images are great. Just not as sharp as Canon.<br>

Believe it or not, I bought a Canon 5d mark II last week with a 50mm 1.2 L and took it back because it was clunky in my hands. I'm sure I would've gotten use to it if I kept it. I guess because I'm so used to Nikon's lay out which I think is far superior.</p>

 

<p>I kept in the Canon camp for about a year for the 5D/5d2 + the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4. I have now sold them all.</p>

<p>One thing that is apparent about sharpness: Nikons Zooms are "FAR" better than Canons, whereas the Canon primes are "FAR" better than Nikons (but then Nikon don't offer any to speak of).</p>

<p>I use an 85/1.4 and used to use the Canon 85/1.2. As a direct comparrison I would have to admit that the Canon is sharper by a tad bit, but then again, only hits critical focus on occasion where my Nikon hits 90% of the time (low light like 3Ev - 4Ev). So like for like, the Nikon is better as I can rely on it more.</p>

<p>I had the 24-70/2.8 Canon for a couple of years, and while sharp, does not hold the candle when you compare to the Nikon counterpart, IMO. Not much difference with the 70-200/Vr/IS lenses. Then there's the 14-24 versus the 16-35 (not the same overall FL I know) where the Canon is lagging severely in the sharpness dept. IMO. In fact I had the 17-55/IS too and side by side the 17-55 was sharper than the 16-35.</p>

<p>So, it depends on what you want. Those particular photogs are rock stars in this trade and their work is "worked" on. A lot in some cases. Add to that the shallow DOF from the Canon primes and you have at lest the impression of sharper images.</p>

<p>You should look at Marc's work and see how sharp that is... in both senses.</p>

<p>Go to the website for Crash Taylor, then go read his interviews. In each interview he asks what equipment they use, and there are plenty of images for each photographer he interviews. There are some very high end Nikon users there.</p>

<p>"Now; all ya' gotta' do is count the number of WHITE lenses Vs The number of BLACK lenses."</p>

<p>You do know that Nikon makes white lenses (not pure white, but off white/very light greay)? It is just that most Nikon users don't choose to use them.</p>

<p>Fred, I get your question. Please feel free to e-mail me directly through Photo.net if you want to chat about Nikon gear used for weddings.</p>

<p>When Nikon finally went full frame I went back to Nikon. Lots of folks went Canon sometime ago (including me), because they were FF well ahead of Nikon and had some terrific fast prime lenses. However, for most wedding shooters, swapping systems back and forth is not a good financial move given the investment involved. I wanted to do it because I prefer the Nikon ergonomics, use of dual CFs rather than CF/SD of Canon Pro bodies, and especially the flash system to Canon's approach. I was able to do it successfully with little financial injury because of the high demand for used Canon pro gear.</p>

<p>Regarding sharpness ... most folks use zooms for a majority of wedding work along with some fast primes. I agree completely with David Wegwart, nothing I ever used in the Canon line up matches the AFS 14-24/2.8 or AFS 24-70/2.8 ... and now Nikon has announced a long needed AFS reformulated replacement for the 70-200/2.8VR to match the other two zooms in performance. The Nikon AFS 105/2.8 Macro is also VR optic and is a more modern lens than its Canon counterpart which is NOT an IS lens. The new AFS 50/1.4 is much better than Nikon's previous 50/1.4. </p>

<p>So it depends on what you are after in terms of over-all handling and optics. Half a dozen of one, 6 of the other.</p>

<p>If you are starting from scratch, you are in the cat birds seat in terms of choices. I recommend also looking at Sony. The new A850 is 24 meg., full frame for under $2K.</p>

<p>But (trust me on this), it is in the area of optics that makes the Sony worth a look. The Zeiss AF 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 are lenses that set new standards for micro contrast clarity, color, and that elusive 3D quality. The Sony 70-200/2.8G APO is better than both the Canon and current Nikon versions IMHO. Being the late comer with high-end digital capture Sony is accelerating very fast, and there are expectations of additional Zeiss primes soon to be added. If Zeiss makes one or more of their legendary fast primes (28/2, 35/1.4, 55/1.2 and 85/1.2 available in a Sony AF mount), it will be a completely new ball game for both Nikon and Canon. </p>

<p>But the kicker on all this is that ALL lenses you put on a Sony are Image Stabilized in the camera. In the real world this contributes to sharpness as much or more than any slight differences in modern optical performance. </p>

<p>It's a good time to be exploring gear. It's all quite good and you really can't go wrong with most any of it.</p>

<p>(BTW, I shoot weddings with a Nikon D3X and Sony A900 side-by-side). </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Why is it that somewhat simple questions are met with derision? If you don't want to provide an answer, don't answer. It will make inexperienced photographers feels unwelcome. That and frankly most of the people reading this site are probably hobbyists and they are somewhat caught up in the brand wars. So, they want to see what people using their equipment are capable of achieving. It doesn't hurt to look for inspiration.</p>

Hi Fred,

<br>I think I understand the gist of your query, allow me to say this on this thread especially for the benefit of newbies to photography who may stumble upon it. Whether Nikon or Canon or Pentax or Sony, you will always get those for and against a particular system. There is no perfect system and indeed there can't be, because it all gets very subjective. The important thing is to learn how to use what you have and get really good at using it. It can be misleading just to get statistical about how many (or who) uses Nikon vs who uses Canon.

<p>At the risk of sounding overly pedantic :) sharpness and clarity are not just functions of gear but of technique, both pre-shot and post-production.

<p>In someone else's hands, a 5D2 with a 50 f/1.2L will capture an award-winning image. In your hands it felt clunky. Perhaps a Nikon D3 with Nikon's equivalent prime (I'm a Canon shooter) may yield <i>you</i> an award-winner. With the current crop of dSLRs from the major players, it matters little. What matters more than the tool itself is how you use that tool...

<p>Hi Fred. I just wanted to say that you shouldn't have received some of the answers that you did. You should have gotten a list of names and or links to photographers using Nikon gear. Not all the questions and responses about it not mattering what someone uses.

<p>Marc,</p>

<p>Whil I agree about the optics for the Sony A900 and the 24-70.....if you're shooting in relatively low light, and using iso 800 or 1600....or higher, the best optics in the world are simply being smeared away by noise. At least, this is what I see in samples online.</p>

<p>I was excited about the A850 news release. I'd love to hear your opinions of how the 900 works with these superb optics during weddings where candid shooting are involved without flash at 1600 or 3200. What are your thoughts as to the noise from the Sony in that regard? While I figure it won't equal a 5D2 or D3X.....how bad is is really for prints at 8x10 and 11x14?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.marlonrichardson.com/discuss/">Marlon Richardson Studio » Miami Fine Art Wedding Photography & Portra</a><br>

Go check out this guy, he shoot with a900/a700, I think you my rethink your equipment. There are other companies that make great gear. You don't always have to use what everyone else does.</p>

<p>And the thread has been officially hijacked!<br />Agree with Johnny Lotz. and James P. Jones.</p>

<p>Thanks Rick. On some of the images there is a bit of shadow noise....but it looks very natural...filmlike....as opposed to digital noise. He has some fine work.</p>

<p>http://www.artpinneyblog.com<br>

We use Nikon D3's. Main lenses used are 24-70, 14-24, 85 1.4, 200 2.0</p>