Should I switch from Canon to Nikon for weddings?

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by otto_haring, Nov 8, 2009.

  1. Sunday morning I woke up with a thought that I should switch from Canon to Nikon and become one of the Nikonians. I am a wedding photographer and it is still early and I am kind of pissed! This is a bad start for a Sunday!

    It seems to me that Nikon cameras and also lenses outperform the Canon system. As a matter of fact, I have the top of the line gear; Canon 5D, Canon 85mm 1.2L, 35mm 1.4L, 70-200 2.8L, etc… AND I am not really impressed by the new Canon 5D Mark II either! It seems to me that Nikon cameras are much better (ALREADY!) and Canon is just catching up…. All the photographers I adore SEEM to have NIKON SYSTEM!

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to blame Canon for my pictures but it seems to me that photographers with Nikon cameras and lenses more easily create the unique special look (beautiful sharp, crisp, fresh images with dreamy look, and colors which pop!) on their images which distinguishes them from the REST of us.

    To be honest I am a bit hesitant to do it. Do you think it is ME or what? My site with all the pictures: "haring photography miami " . Be honest! I am good with criticism. I need to find out! Please advise me! Has anybody actually changed after already having the top of the line Canon lenses? Was there an improvement? As you know this would be an expensive switch. Thanks! Otto
  2. Honest to Canon, i would not switch, i have friends that are semi to pro wedding photogs, and theier is two guys that have the newere Nikon and I have yet to see any difference in between them, only money once you get into lens, dont get me wrong I like a Nikon , and if I ever start shooting bad weddings I would consider changing myself, I always get something and then think crap I should have bought better or different and in the end I just go with has worked, Im no super pro or anything but I sure get a lot of small work and I think style has as much to do with your shots as your equipment.
  3. If someone put a series of photos together of the same subject in the same light photographed with Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, or Leica cameras, could people pick them out and identify which system shot which picture? I am willing to bet that the answer is "no." Could they even tell that there was a difference between the shots?
  4. Thanks for the comments! Anybody?
  5. Otto I'm not a pro my self but I just can't see how one system can be so superior to the other. Like anything else each one has their pros and cons and that It's for you to decide which one better suits your stile. I highly doubt that if you migrate from Canon to Nikon or the other way arround your images are going to get better or worst (granted you are using comparable equipment) they right way (and that is the key word) right way.
    There are a few thing you could do as experiment. Go rent Nikon body and lenses and see it for your self. The other thing is to study the images of the photographers you adore and study their work and style. Some times the initial settings will make some difference and PhotoShop or the like will make a a tremendous difference regardless the camera. Lighting It's another huge factor, some of these pro's will make a point a shoot sing.
    I can't see the system being a fault here.
  6. Alex is right. If the equipment was to be blamed, either one would have closed-shop ages ago. One of the reasons I switched camp to Nikon is because of the CLS system. Canon only came out with similar system with the 7D. Ask what is it about Canon or Nikon or Pentax or Oly that you like and dislike - ergonomis/feel/layout/quick access/menu etc. Go for the one that suits you best.
    I believe all pro photographers have managed to adapt and make the best of the gear and not just long for what they do not have. Sure there will always be some that will switch camp due to some frustration or another. What frustrates me may not frustrate you. If in Canon camp, learn from other Canon users who have produced excellent pix.
  7. Having looked at your website I think a lot of your images looks soft. You may have a focus problem with your equipment but regardless of that I think you are not maximizing the post production potential of your images. While Nikon puts their pro level AF both in their D300/D700 series and their D3 series focusing is likely much better than your 5D but apart from that I doubt you'll see much difference.
    I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of attaching one of your images below. If you look at the original image you'll see that the focus is not on the brides eyes but somewhere close to her ear. That's about 2 inches off and this could be an equipment problem as well as a bit of focusing technique.
    In the "after" image I applied some selective sharpening to her face and some selective brightning as well as a bit of saturation boost. I'm not sure what kind of images you are trying to create but crisp images that pops requries more post work and usually selectivly applied, for instance to enhance shallow depth of field.
    So, why not have your equipment checked for focusing problems and maybe try to learn some more post production techniques before spending your cash?
  8. Suppose for a moment that this is true - that you can get much better photographs with the Nikon products than the Canon ones. The product line evolves constantly, so the current products have only been around a short time. The older products are different and (largely) not quite as good (I'm thinking of products like the D700 and 14-24, which are said to be better than anything Nikon has producted before). However, would you say that the world's best SLR photographs have all been taken in the past three years? No? So it's probably not the equipment then.
  9. Both cameras Nikon and Canon have their good and bad things like everything else in life. It just depends what you like and what you can put up with. As far as lenses, Canon has some lenses that are far better then Nikons and some of the Nikon lenses are better then Canon's. It all comes down to personal preference. When I started out shooting weddings I bought a Fuji, a Nikon and a Canon and shot all three for a year because I had no idea which I would like.........after the year I sold the Nikon and the Fuji and now I only shoot Canon and never regreted it.
  10. You have great stuff.
    Upgrade the photographer, not the gear.
  11. If you struggle to get good images with the gear listed then the reason is one of the three listed below:
    1) faulty equipment (likely camera body)
    2) unskilled in post processing
    3) poor technique
    My guess is that it is either 2 and/or 3. Your gear is capable of absolutely fantastic images if used correctly. By the way, the ring shot on your homepage is very good!
  12. I switched to Nikon and developed a rash.
  13. A few threads below yours is one from someone asking if they should abandon Nikon and move to Canon.
    The blunt answer to both threads is 'no'. They're both excellent camera systems. If someone can't make one system work for them they won't be able to make the other work for them either. The 5D is an excellent camera - good enough for some of the leading lights in the industry. I'd suggest it's probably good enough for you too.
    I'd be happy with either. I prefer to use Nikon, but that's only because I've used the system for long enough to learn the ergonomics. It's not that I think it's intrinsically better.
  14. Otto,
    Since you’re a professional earning your daily bread through photography, the decision should be very straightforward.
    How much additional income (after expenses, of course) do you anticipate generating using Nikon gear instead of Canon gear? If it’s more than it’ll cost you to switch, then switch. If not, do it only if you can afford the luxury and if that’s what you most want to spend your disposable income on.
    I can’t imagine any scenario in which a switch in either direction makes sense, but that doesn’t mean such scenarios don’t exist. Yours may well be one of them.
  15. I think that anyone that has ever taken a great picture would not credit the camera. The camera is only a tool. The person who said "Upgrade the photographer, not the camera" Hit the nail right on the head. Nobody could look at any picture and tell you what kind of camera took it. They may get as close as to tell you the rough focul length of the lens, but not which lens, or the model, and in some cases not even that. There are so many variables in a DSL camera, you could take the same picture with a 100 different settings and get 100 variations in the same picture. How well you know your camera will make all the difference in how good your pictures will be.
  16. looked at the web site, there seems to be a lack of post processing on some of the images,
  17. There might be a reason to switch systems, but what you have listed as a reason is more related to finishing of an image than to the camera system. Great images come from attention to all of the details, as well as the skill in actually shooting the image. Sometimes a great image will pop out of the camera, but more likely, it will take a photographer's skill in post to make and image sing. This has always been the case with photography.
    Now, what was that old saying--The raw file is the score and the print is the performance--I know that is close, but........
  18. Are you using a UV filter? That could cause some softness. We shot with Canon gear for years and I always thought Nikon glass was sharper (we had a couple of other shooters using Nikon and one using Fuji). But Nikon used a CCD which wasn't great under low light. We eventually switched to the D300. During the course of the next year after the switch, we discovered how insidious the UV filter could be and no longer use them. I really wished I hadn't used them on our Canon lenses for a more accurate comparison. Had Canon introduced the 7D instead of, or at the same time, as the 50D, I am not so sure we would have switched as the 7D seems to have what I was always disappointed with: better AF system, better metering. We have both a Nikon D90 and a D300. I do NOT like shooting with the D90; there is a difference shooting with the D300. Much the same I would imagine of someone shooting with a 50D vs a 7D. Or a 5D vs the 7D since the 5D uses essentially the same metering/AF system as most other Canon cameras (with the exception of the top two bodies and the 7D). In the end, I still prefer Nikon's ergonomics, battery grips, and CWB is easier! But again, I am not so sure we would have switched had the 7D been available. And I know we would not have switched if the 5D had had Canon's bettering AF/metering system (the one found on their top two bodies). Overall though I am happy with the switch and have no reason to consider another switch.
  19. Any one who switches to get the "latest thing" is doomed to switch often.
  20. I'm with Pete on this one. I've seen your portfolio, and despite the good images you have there, some of them are out of focus. Especially the first ones, it is very noticeable, and it seems that you have applied clarity to try solving that issue.
    The gear you have is capable off very great results, better then those you're having I might say - so maybe there is a focusing issue on 5D or maybe technique since you're working with large apertures (you have to be carefully on selecting focus and re-compose the frame.
    Also the post-processing images isn't working as it was supposed to. I suggest you invest in editing workshops, or search along in the internet about working with different layers.
    That been said, there isn't a matter of Canon vs Nikon, I can assure that. Both Canon and Nikon bottom of lines products are capable of getting great results. In top of line, there are a few differences between brands BUT never regarding the IMAGE QUALITY per say.
    Andre Ferrari
  21. Why is it all ways the equipment that gets changes and not the mind set :
  22. The general consensus is to stick with what you've got and make it work rather than switching entire systems, especially given the lens investment you've made (excellent glass). Maybe you were just having a bad day? ;-) I would also agree, after having looked at your website, that most of your images are soft, and disturbingly so. I'm not sure if it's because of pre-capture technique or something you're adding in post-processing. Soft focus works for some shots but when every other shot is soft, hmmm...
  23. First of all, there is no place on the map called 'The Artitic'. You have a large number of spelling errors and bad HTML conversions on your site that will definitely turn away the high-end customers you are trying to hook.
    As to switching, I say NO WAY! I use Nikon, but I think the 5D is a great camera. I have certainly seen a number of very good images made with it. Some of the images on your site are quite good, but I agree you need more PP skills, and a faster shutter speed in a number of cases. Motion blur/camera shake seems to be a real problem for you, which is a shame, because you have a good eye.
  24. I am having both Nikon and Canon (D300 and 5D MK II) . Both are great camera. I just got 5DMKII because I like the Canon color reproduction and color separation which I was not able to get it from Nikon. May be I am not that much expert in post processing. Canon Lens is much cheaper and wide range . Hadling wise both are fentastic. Canon you can handle all the day. But Nikon with 70-200 AF-s Vr and D300 is too heavy to carry around . Keep Canon also . For CLS of Nikon buy one Cactus Wireless trigger and use Nikon Falsh. Both gives fentastic results , if processed properly.
  25. I think you are having a bad day. Keep what you have and work harder at making pictures.
  26. I think we all experience other-brand envy from time to time. It's a natural human response.
    That said, I suspect that the differences you've noticed have more to do with lighting and post-processing than the brand of camera that took the photo. I'm a Nikon guy, but I've seen STAGGERINGLY SHARP photos from Canon cameras. Regardless of brand, these cameras work fine; getting the most out of them is the tricky part.
  27. Hello Otto.
    First of all very nice images on your portfolio, sorry to hear your sunday started this way but from time to time it happens to all of us. doubt is part of the creative process and many times we blame the equipment for being on the way of achieving what we want, on ocassion the equipment can be holding us back but most of the time is ourselves who dont find the way to circumvent the obstacles we find. that is part of knowing very well our system and working with what we have. Nikon is not perfect either. this said let me tell you i shoot with both Canon and Nikon.
    Many people would love to shoot with your current setting but is also no secret that both the 5DMKI and MKII have a poor autofocus, specially for low light situations the hunting can get really frustrating, in this case I would agree Nikon has the edge, and the lighting system is also in my opinion far better than canon's, not to say you can get great results with canon's but Nikon lighting system is more user ready and accurate specially when you have no time to start fiddling with the settings.
    Rent some Nikon for a week, something you would like to eventually buy and give it a run, then think if you want to totally change systems.
    What I did is kept both and use them accordingly to what the moment needs. dont get married to a brand or what people tell you is better, see for yourself and dont let your creativity stall.
  28. I have a friend that owns a Camera repair store, his Dad owned it before him (20-30 yrs in business). He claims that Cannon has a internal focus issue and they know about it but won't amit to it. He says that if you push them on it they will correct it. Cannon Friends that have heard this have pushed Cannon on the issue or sent their cameras to 3rd party repair have seen the results. You might look into this as well. I know my NIKON gear has always provided me sharp images and I have seen differences with my Cannon friends photos from mine, but getting the internal focus issue resolved has helped them.
  29. Nikon doesn't make two of the lenses you are currently using: an 85/1.2 or an autofocus 35/1.4 You'll loose these if you switch. Also, I know everyone here loves to hate Rockwell, but he has shown side by side comparisons that the Canon 5D senor is technically sharper than the Nikon D3 sensor. If ultimate sharpness is an issue, equipment alone won't help you if you switch. Canon's autofocus is very fast, but sometimes it's speed can lead to out of focus shots . . .
    I shoot the D700, but I agree that better technique and better post processing will save you many thousands of dollars.
  30. Canon or Nikon? There is no winner or looser here I think.
    Both equipments will achieve excellent results...
    Say, Canon or Hasselblad? and then we would have much more things to discuss...
  31. You can switch to the new ZE-Zeiss-glasses, then you will have ALL YOU NEED for your wedding photography!
  32. During the course of the next year after the switch, we discovered how insidious the UV filter could be and no longer use them.​
    This is what happens when you put a $20 piece of glass in front of a $1,500 piece of glass.

    With Tiffen filters, I have noticed loss of image quality, but since I started using Hoya HD filters I cannot tell a difference, even when shooting into the sun. The downside is that the HD filters cost around $100 an on up depending on filter size.
  33. If you know that you will be taking significantly better photos with Nikon, sure, make the switch.
    Also what Ben said, if you know it will increase your income, switch, it's a no-brainer.
  34. Don't take this the wrong way... but the very fact that you actually needed to ask this question in the first place confirms to me that it is you at fault, not the camera system. The 5D with the lenses you have were made for wedding photography. If you can't match the best quality images out there with your equipment then you need to improve both your camera skills and your post processing ability.
    Switching to Nikon might actually make it worse as you'll have to learn your way around the Nikon system as well as trying to improve your own skill.
  35. I agree with the previous posts that your images are out of focus and soft. Blaming your equipment is not going to solve anything. The 5D is a great camera and has produced perfectly sharp pictures for me everytime. I wonder if you use a selective autofocus sensor or have it set to automatic. I switched to using just the center autofocus sensor and have never had focus issues since.
  36. Nikon would love for you to do this, and Canon will love you when you switch again in a few years... and so on, and so on and so on etc. etc.
  37. I started out as a Canon film guy, then moved into MF. And my dSLR, which is relatively new, isn't Canon or Nikon. So I am not expert on either digital system. But I have noticed that most wedding photographers I've seen use Nikon but that doesn't mean the system is better -most top sports photographers shoot Canon. So I think these trends reflect something other than camera performance. As others have said, if we viewed a series of photos with different systems we would not be able to tell the difference. I think you have some great photos and I don't think switching to Nikon would make them any better (Now switching to a Hasselblad is a different story...;))
  38. There is an argument, naturally only from Nikon users, that the Nikon flash system is better. This might explain the use of Nikon by wedding photographers, if it were actually true. However, plenty of weddings are photographed with Canon equipment, and I've heard no complaints.
    As for a "secret" flaw in Canon AF, it doesn't even rise to the level of urban folklore. It's somebody's effort to spread FUD, and no more. EOS has been around since 1987, and I think somebody besides an unknown "camera repairman" would have figured this one out by now, if it had a shred of truth to it. Even my EOS 650 (the first of the breed) still focuses spot on, if not so quickly as the newer ones.
  39. I had the 5D as a backup and was very happy with the results. The 1Ds mk3 images are even better. So my answer to you is Canon lenses are wonderful and razer sharp.

    The 5D has had issues with the mirror and the sensor. Perhaps your camera needs to be checked out for proper alignment. Some of the mirrors have actually fallen out of the camera, including mine.

    I actually switched from Nikon to Canon about 2 or 3 years ago, when the Nikon D2X was there top of the line. I switched because my photo partner was getting better image quality with his 1Ds Mk2. We did a shoot out comparing both systems. Canon won.

    I've seen amazing shots come out of the new 5D mk2 and the new Nikon cameras, such as he D3. This leads me to believe your camera is messed up.
  40. Otto --- I am in a similar mindset as you. I shoot portraits (mainly outdoor) with my 5D and recently have been thinking of switching to a D700 for better AF performance. Something to consider....there's internet rumor about a D700x coming down the pipeline possibly later this year. Right now the superior sharpness and detail of the 5D, for me, are enough to justify the AF performance. If the D700x has D3x image quality and D700 AF performance, then that might justify the switch. I would wait until first of the year and see what's out there before you jump on it. Maybe use your tax refund if applicable and snag it then. You'd feel like a dummy if you bought a new d700 and a new model came out within a couple months.
  41. @ Keith.... I mostly use B+W filters. The 77mm MCR variety for the 24-70 was about $150 when I bought it for our Canon 24-70. Even then, a UV filter is a piece of glass that alters the originally engineered optics. I had a friend send in a Nikon 70-200 VR lens because of soft images. Nikon said the lens was fine. I told him to take the UV filter off for one shoot. He did and everything was tack sharp. I am not saying the UV filter is always the issues, but it can cause issues. It's insidious in that you just don't know if it was the UV filter or something else. Eliminating the filter eliminates one potential cause. I do agree that I loathe cheap filters. But even expensive ones can cause issues- just generally less of them.
  42. You can switch to the new ZE-Zeiss-glasses, then you will have ALL YOU NEED for your wedding photography!​
    Ha ha! At least you wouldn't have any autofocus issues if you did that. Probably not a helpful choice, though.
  43. The grass is always greener on the other side.
  44. Otto,
    Yes, it's you, not the camera. I have the 5D also and find the lenses are already sharper than the camera can record (using correct technique and iris). You already have 3 of the best lenses ever made for 35mm SLR cameras.
    I looked at your site, and you shoot a often with very shallow depth of field. I think you need to use only the center focus point, focus and reposition for the best focus. Also, a number of your photos have motion blur due to long shutter speeds. They look nice, but don't expect the sharpest images in these cases.
    As for color and dreaminess, Nikon, Canon, they're all the same. Only the photographers are different.
    When you make the switch, (I just have a feeling you'll do it anyways) let us know how your photography has improved or ...not. I mean really, I'm not using a Nikon, so I could be missing something...
  45. Cameras don't make images, photographers do!
  46. I agree with David Hensler that this was an attempt to get people to look at your site, but that being said, I looked at your site. And I liked it quite a bit. I especially like the ring lit shots of the children. Some real nice stuff in there. As for the comments of things being soft, I don't see much of a problem. In some instances I like the softness and in others, it could be the nature of your site build. I notice that the photo resizes based on the browser window. If not looking at the native resolution it can definitely add softness, perceptual and otherwise. As for the actual question, I shoot with Nikon and am quite happy with it but because of the ergonomics, not the image quality. Good luck.
  47. Otto,
    Joseph Massimo and Jamie Robertson, they said it all. And I hope that was only a bad dream... And I am believing that You are just playing with us :) Both systems are excellent and You allready have excellent glass. Only Carl Zeiss ZF Lenses will outperform Japanese optics...
    But remember: All of those great Prime lenses will outperform sensor's resolution, so don't bother, just go to imaging-resource and compare (noise level) for yourself.
    BOTTOM LINE: Stay with Your gear and get monopod for $80 :)
  48. Stick with what you know, stick with what you have. Develop your own skills. Both Canon and Nikon systems are excellent but have much more in common with each other than they are different. Especially considering your lenses you already have. Great stuff.
    It's not the tool (unless you routinely need to shoot at ISO 6400/12800 or above), but the photographer that makes the difference.
    And I'm a dedicated Nikon guy. Frankly, I don't really care. I just want to be able to use my stuff to it's fullest potential – doesn't matter what brand it is.
  49. I think you should switch.
    Then you could just swap gear with one of the people who have recently posted a "Should I switch from Nikon to Canon" thread. It would save both of you a bunch of money in the swapping process.
    Best of luck to ya.
  50. Great glass...just upgrade to a 5D2
  51. James' concern is people who speak of themselves in third-person singular on their websites. James thinks that to be a little scary.
  52. Every few years, the grass grows differently. Right now, the grass looks greener on the Nikon side. Try a Nikon D3s with a 24-70 lens. You won't be disappointed.
  53. Switching from Nikon to Canon
  54. Keith:
    Then you could just swap gear with one of the people who have recently posted...​
    That's actually a great idea, Keith, although how to work out equivalencies would be tough aside from the standards such as 18-55, etc. Perhaps new price for the others?
    If this were worked out properly, then a person could switch every time a new announcement was made. The only lag would be shipping time. Perhaps frequent shifters could work out a sort of round robin of persons who have similar taste in focal lengths and the like. Sort of "camera swingers" ! :0
    Of course, you'd never be quite sure which operating system you were using, but those of us who are Mac mujihadin have had to make a similar gearshift everytime we went up to the job where Windoze computers were used, so it is possible, to work on two not-quite-the-same systems, and probably easier with cameras than with computers.
  55. Yes, switch as soon as you can. I used to suffer from the "it must be me, not the equipment's at fault" syndrome, but I snapped out of it and realised it really is the equipment's fault.
  56. I have used, and continue to use, Nikon cameras practically since I started doing photography way back in 1974. No one has more brand loyalty to Nikon than I do. But Canon makes some very fine stuff as well and I hardly think you would be able to tell the difference, at least in digital, (which I am not particularly fond of anyway), but that is a discussion for another day. Remember the old saying, it's always the bad carpenter who blames his tools? I remember an ad for tennis rackets back in the 1970's that basically said......."Mats Wilander could win Wimbledon with a frying pan, but he choses Yonex rackets instead" or something to that effect.
    The bottom line is, use what you have and and work on your skills, rather than chucking your current equipment because of some perceived difference in quality, which is not there to begin with.
  57. Otto, at this level the equipment in either camp (Canon or Nikon) will not be the problem and the Canon 85mm 1.2L is one reason why I would want to shoot with Canon.
    Rule out any system faults by using the set-up that you use to shoot weddings with a simple axial focus test. Keep in mind that using the 85mm 1.2L wide open is challenging – but very rewarding when you get it right.
    If the equipment checks out OK then you need to rule yourself out as the problem.
  58. you could certainly change from canon to nikon but your images won't improve. all digicam slr's produce roughly the same images at normal iso's (1600 and below), and with decent glass, there isn't really a need to go above this. now if you upgraded to film.........................
  59. I think your photography is very good, but for the fact that many of the images seem a little unsharp. Perhaps you need to see what the cause of that is. As far as camera brand, I switched from Canon to Nikon myself, but I don't think that has as much to do with you're wanting to jump ship as you think. Sometimes change is good if you can afford it, Nikons are very good, but then so are Canons. pith
  60. Go back to sleep. It's not the equipment
  61. You should switch immediately!
  62. If it'll make you happy, then 'yes'.
    Will it make you a better photographer? Probably not.
    Buy a Leica and become a snob!
  63. If you look at the lenses you use Nikon has no 35 1.4 there 85 1.4 is inferior to the canon 85 f1.2 L and until the new nikon 70-200 gets tested there current 70-200 is a dog wide open so for you I would not switch but get your lenses calibrated and work on technique. David
  64. The Nikon 70-200 is hardly "a dog wide open." Still won't necessarily give you better photos over the equivalent Canon but it's a great lens.
  65. Before you jump...I just bought the EOS 7D... Oh my goodness the joy of an amazing camera once again!
    I remember when Canon used to be "THE" digital camera. Then Nikon jumped into the game. Honestly I was a died-in-the wool Nikonian with film cameras for years and had a slew of great lenses for press photography etc. Then a colleague let me borrow a Canon (this was back when Nikon was still using someone else's camera body for their digital camera). I fell in love with it.
    Now I own Canon gear... Couple of point and shoot, the Rebel, 3D, 4D, 5D AND NOW 7D. Canon really got it right with the 7D. I have also gone outside of the Canon lens line and have acquired some great Tamron and Sigma lenses that give superb results. Though I still stick with the top end Canon for long lenses and still love my 70-200 mm 2.8 (I just love fast lenses anyway) I would not go back to Nikon at this point (and not just because I sold or gave away about 40k in Nikon lenses either).
  66. I don't think it really matters. I happen to be a Nikon user, in part because I was a Nikon film SLR user and had lenses. Nikon CLS is nice but Canon's have their strengths as well.
  67. Only Carl Zeiss ZF Lenses will outperform Japanese optics...​
    (Shhh. Those Carl Zeiss ZF lenses are Japanese optics. At least, mine says "made in Japan" on it.) Don't let that stop you from enjoying them, though.
  68. Personally unless you're going to buy a Fuji S5, well I'd say no - and I am a Nikon user (D300 and S5 user). Both Canon and Nikon make great systems and if you're in one and not hopelessly tribalistic, then the grass normally seems "greener" on the other side. Happens to me too with wanting Canon equipment.
    Personally I do think Canon is more neutral in its rendition, and Nikon tends to have a "look" (I call it the "Nikon Browns"). Problem is that "look" sometimes makes the image more constraining and will probably ultimately go out of style. Using RAW though you have a lot more options.
    In the end though, I would be very hard pressed to recommend anyone change in either direction. Both have their advantages, and zealots aside, they are both fantastic systems.
  69. this was back when Nikon was still using someone else's camera body for their digital camera​
    Actually it was Kodak putting their electronics into Nikon bodies. F5 and N80. Kodak sensor, Nikon F mount. Not a bad combination really as you could get a full frame 14 megapixel sensor (the DSC 14n based on the N80 used the same CMOS sensor as the Canon 1DS). This was in 2002. They are actually still decent cameras, aside from the tiny LCD, horrid battery consumption, and slow frame rate.
    @Greg; using storm troopers for focusing tests? I'm thinking maybe I need to break out the G.I. Joes!
  70. Why do we always blame on the equiptment? We are the artist. IT'S THE MAN BEHIND THE LENS.
  71. B G typed:
    I looked at your site, and you shoot a often with very shallow depth of field. I think you need to use only the center focus point, focus and reposition for the best focus.​
    Not so much. In fact, I'd suggest that is exactly what you do NOT want to do especially when shooting at a very wide aperture.
    A rather blunt summary (not mine) why:
    Consistent with my experience. YMMV.
  72. Yes you should definately change to NIKON from CANON. Nikon make far superior and robust bodies and although they dont make as many amateur lenses they do make superior professional lenses. If you were to purchase a good Nikon body eg D700 or wait for the D800 (i'm waiting! :eek:)) and purchase the Nikon 70-200 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 14-24 f2.8 you would have a system that is far superior to the Canon. You would be able to create sharper and more dreamy looking pics with more punch and true colour. Canon's colour looks rather insipid to me and unnatural looking.
    Good luck with your new system. You won't regret it ;o)
  73. All wrong.
    Get an M9 and valium for your subjects so they will hold still.
  74. I agree you should definetely switch to Nikon. They make a way better product in every aspect. And because I really want to help you switch I will buy all that old crappy Canon stuff from you starting with that 85 1.2L and the 70-200 F2.8 :). I will gladly give you .50 on the dollar. Seriously, I occasionally shoot with both. I have a Canon 5D Mark II my best friend shoots with a Nikon D3. I can make excellent photos with each. I also use both a Mac and a PC depending on what I am creating. Personally, I prefer Canon just because the controls are easier for me. The Nikons have too many buttons too much stuff to think about. I think you could benift for the Live View focusing of the Canon 5D Mark II this has helped me a lot.
  75. Are those Nikon guys for real? I figure they must be joking. But without emoticons it is hard to tell.
    I suppose they could simply be very parochial, if they really think they can characterize a whole line of lenses and cameras in such sweeping and biased terms.
  76. If you ae using lenses wide open be very precise with focussing. If you use AF I can recommend first to compose and selct the apprpriate AF sensor for focussing. Recompossing when usign only the center focus sensor will again bring the risk that your focussed point will be out of focus.
    If I use my lens full y open I also use manual focus. Even during a wedding. Spend time in it and learn from your errors. Also the 5D Mark II has microfocus adjust. So you can finetune the focus error of your lens i.c.w. your camera. Maybe there is also something to win.
    And as mentioned before, post processing is neccesary for optimum focus. RAW images need shapening in the end and there are several techniques for it.
    From the other hand if you think Nikon gives you better results then why not rent some gear for a couple of days and do some tests. After that do some honest compares.
    my 5 ct
  77. Are there reasons to change systems ... sure. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc. etc. are not all the same.
    It depends on your objectives and personal vision as to which is best for you.
    But no change will make you a better photographer, only help you hone in on those personal creative objectives.
    Define that and you can make more informed decisions about what gear you need, and what you don't need.
  78. Funny, it seems like I am the only one here who thinks the so called "blurry" images on his websites are actually pretty good. You do have the skill to capture the moment and to frame your subject very well. And the softness that some people pointed out, I actually liked them in some of the pictures. Not all though. I think some of them do appear like that because of how you post process the skin? (it appears to 'mushy' or 'plasticky'?)
    But then again I am not a fan of those plastic look like those you find from lots of magazine covers.
    But if you really really insist on jumping to Nikon, I am happy to buy a new set of D300s with 85mm 1.8 for you, and in return you send me your 5DMkII and the 85mm 1.2 :)
    Seriously though, since you live in US, why not pick one weekend when you're not on a job, rent a D700 with a Nikon pro-grade prime and zoom, and just shoot around and see how it goes? Afterall this sort of thing is very subjective, so you're the only person who can answer your question.
  79. lol, where is Otto by the way? thats it for me , never answering one more of those "Canon or Nikon questions'' I try to be very objective and fair with OP's when answering. but now I think is childish to even ask this questions and dumb from me to answer. have fun all you "BRANDFAN" guys and girls and "EQUIPMENT GEEKS" I'll be bussy taking pics.
  80. Yup. It's definitely the gear. Remember that Cartier-Bresson chap? He shot Leica. Get a Holga, you'll be amazing then.
  81. Thanks for all the great comments! To tell you the truth, I have reconsidered. It was a bad Sunday morning!!! What I have to learn is MORE PATIENCE!!!!
  82. Pete S!
    Thanks for the great advice!!!!
  83. "So, why not have your equipment checked for focusing problems and maybe try to learn some more post production techniques before spending your cash?"
    Yeah, I think you are right.
    Do you think the fine calibration system of the new 5D MArk II would help?
  84. Hey Guys!
    1. I don't mind the negative comments like: " Upgrade the photographer, not the gear."
    "looked at the web site, there seems to be a lack of post processing on some of the images"
    I really appreciate your help!!! I am not perfect, I know.

    2. I DO use high end UV filter! I will remove all of them!
    3. At least some of you guys liked some of my pictures. It makes me fell much better! Much better!
  85. I have shot side-by-side with my seconds on numerous occasions (both have Nikons). When the style is not different, they are very hard to tell apart.
    I can tell you that I just got a 7D two weeks ago, and as an upgrade from a 40D, it has an outstanding AF system. I would consider it if I were you.
  86. Hi Otto... I'm a semi-pro freelance photographer and if there is any piece of advice I can give you is merely this:
    Cameras don't take pictures... people do. I have shot with both Nikon & Canon, but have held true to Canon (personal preference). I know that there are some of your favorite pros shoot with Nikon and I'm sure they would agree that it's not so much their equipment but more of their approach, style and work flow.
    I think you're equipment is awesome; and you should NOT switch but instead study their technique and workflow. Sometimes we photographers get caught up in the same monotonous routine of shooting and doing things simply because it worked well before. I think it is important that we stretch the envelope and push beyond the mediocracy.
    Remember, we as photographers have a gift and that gift is one that needs to constantly be polished. We have the ability of freezing and capturing time...essence... soul.... with every shot we take we write the pages of someone's happy moments.
    In the end... it is not your equipment. It boils down to what you're doing... and how you're doing it. Reflect and retreat... I believe renting a Nikon and shooting with it is a great way to see for yourself that it is not your equipment... it's merely things you have to change up in how you shoot to how you post process.
    I hope this helps some... :)
  87. There are too many possible factors to consider before you jump to conclusions about camera systems. Firstly, Canon has had a few problems in the autofocus department. I would get your gear checked out by a Canon service center to make sure everything is calibrated properly. I used to shoot Canon and I had to send in brand new L glass a lot for calibration in order to make even one acceptable image. Once you verify your gear is solid, shoot with it for a while and see if your images change for the better.
    Next, ergonomics and ease of use plays an important part in your enjoyment of shooting. Check out some of the other Canon bodies. Try a 1-series body just to feel the difference. The 5D MKII is a great camera as well.
    I prefer the Nikon "feel" over Canon but my choice to switch was really based on a return to Nikon once the newer sensors were introduced. I had always used Nikon for 35mm film and Hasselblad for medium format. I personally like the Nikon bodies (I shoot D700) over anything else. But, as some have said, there are a few Canon lenses that are not yet equaled by Nikon and you have those already.
    My Canon system included 5D plus 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135 2.0 for primes. All excellent lenses yet I still prefer the Nikon. I loved my Canon 24-70 2.8 and I was fortunate to have gotten a sharp one after a few attempts (notorious lens for focus issues). But, my Nikon 24-70 2.8 is probably the best lens I have ever found over almost all others. The resolution is without equal.
    Switching systems involves a large cash investment. I'd be 100% sure that you are really using your current system properly before deciding on a different direction. Take some classes, practice a lot, take a photoshop class and do more with post production. Then you will be really "armed" to make decisions about camera systems.
  88. A few words about your website Otto. There are a lot of typos. Bad spelling cheapens the site. Are you really located in all of those places? Do you have offices in every country? I have a feeling people will consider your info to be rather pretentious. Why not just say "available internationally for destination weddings"?
    If you cannot match the information you are displaying with complete confidence in your work and your equipment, it won't add up. Your images are nice. They show you have talent, but yes, some are a bit soft. I suspect either some calibration issues or maybe it's camera settings. There are a lot of action type pictures and they can be tricky to choose the right settings for a good exposure. I'd get your gear checked out. I really think you have some good pictures but there are focus issues and some post production issues that are contributing to your frustration. You have some great images but there are issues. I also think you need more images of your weddings. What you have is good but for someone who opens with a whole page of key words and locations, there is not enough work there to represent this.
    BERLIN PARIS ZURICH LONDON ROME BUDAPEST NEW YORK MIAMI CHICAGO SAN FRANSISCO (Francisco) Where's all the weddings from these places?
    EUROPEN PRECISION AMERICAN STYLE - European! Hardly precision! :)
    Sorry for the font change. I cut and pasted from your site.
    Find a good web designer and make sure it is proofread over and over. You could represent yourself better. You do have a really nice eye for composition so you need to enforce that with good production. I hope you won't think I am being too harsh. I hope the suggestions give you some good thoughts for moving forward.
  89. Guys!!! Thanks for all the advice and the constructive criticism!!!
  90. Unfortunately, English is not my mother language so it takes time to write without typos.... I am sorry about it! But, Lou thanks for being straightforward!!!!!!
    Thanks Angel as well for your comments!!!
  91. Sure thing Otto. I hope some of the suggestions here prove useful. What we do isn't easy. I also like to receive criticism so I can always be in the mode of fine tuning every aspect of my business. Take care!
  92. fj5


    I'm probably a little late with my response but I thought I'd share my own experience.
    Hey Otto, I'm a wedding photographer as well and I made the switch.
    My old set:
    1Ds Mark II
    1D Mark II
    50 1.8
    85 1.2L
    16-35 2.8L
    24-70 2.8L
    70-200 2.8L IS
    And I switched to:
    50 1.4G
    14-24 2.8G
    35-70 2.8D
    70-200 2.8G VR
    Years ago, I chose Canon over Nikon simply because it felt more comfortable in my hands (Rebel Ti vs. F60).
    I'll always be a Canon fan... but why did I switch? Well, I didn't switch because of the potential increase in sharpness and/or image quality. Quite frankly, I haven't even had the chance to compare yet. I'm still waiting for my 14-24 order.
    The reason for my change was mainly the user interface and Auto ISO. Being a wedding photographer always switching among three cameras, I value having almost identical layouts among the D3, D700, and D300S. I won't have to change my mindset between cameras but with my previous Canon set, I did because of that 50D.
    I also liked the fact that Nikon had a button for almost everything which made for quicker adjustments (vs. holding multiple buttons down and rotating a wheel on the Canon 1 series, using two hands at once).
    Auto ISO was a big seller as well. I'm sure you're well aware of how light can change frequently during a wedding shoot. Nikon's Auto ISO feature is pretty intuitive. You set you slowest shutter speed you're willing to handhold and the camera will adjust the ISO to help keep it there or faster, up to the max ISo you set.
    Although I've not yet checked myself, I've read enough and seen enough images from both systems to trust that both will produce quality images that our customers will love. More often than not, we, the photographer, have a much more critical eye than our client.
    By the way, saw your site, great stuff! :)
    Oh, and would you believe that after my switch, I actually made money? ^_^ I'm a very good shopper/seller though. :p
    Good luck!
  93. f.j. sarmiento typed:
    You set you slowest shutter speed you're willing to handhold and the camera will adjust the ISO to help keep it there or faster, up to the max ISo you set.​
    F.J., you've highlighted one of the major advantages of evolving dSLR technology; the ability to not only change ISO instantly but to be able to know that you'll get a useable image.
    Not too long ago, anything above ISO 400 was troublesome. Now . . . wow!
    BTW, your site is very very well done. Small note -- on my monitor your opening shot (flower on cake) seems unsharp. I understand the story-telling and graphic appeal but I bet you have similar images that are stronger. FWIW.
  94. fj5


    Hey, thanks for the feedback, Scott! I really appreciate you taking the time to check it out! Something about that shot led me to pick it out for the first image you see when you click on my site. You're right, it could be sharper, or maybe it was because of the really shallow DOF. In any case, I will be updating the image set later this month when things die down a bit. :)

    Thanks again!

    You got a site I can check out?
  95. F.J. asked:
    You got a site I can check out?​
    Embarrassingly, no. My wife developed a chronic illness just about the time I was beginning the transition to digital so I stopped shooting (part-time) professionally. She's doing better now so I'm exploring ways to get back into a business that has changed radically since I was involved.
  96. A few threads below yours is one from someone asking if they should abandon Nikon and move to Canon.
    The blunt answer to both threads is 'no'.
    Or 'yes'. Get in touch with each other and swap.
  97. fj5


    Hahaha, well, I've actually sold everything except for an EOS 3 film body and some Macro FD stuff. And as for Nikon, I'm pretty set already too. Thanks though! Maybe I can convince him to switch back to film AND use adapters for the FD, haha!

    I do hope you'll get back into the "swing of things" and post. Always interested in seeing other people's work.

Share This Page