DSLRUsers.com

Well i have made tough decision regarding my future as a pro shooter by now switching to Canon .....hurts to admit it but Nikon 'again' are just dragging the chain at the upper end of pro equipment (period between D200 - D3 anyone)......the need for 1080p Video has left Nikon looking foolish with their crappy 720p and codec and constant s and x updates.....anyone who thinks that video and stills wont be in sync as one in a few short years will be left behind.....will it make me a better shooter ? NO.....but i will be able to enter the video realm especially with what i do its just an extra service that i can provide my clients with....so i will ask Gary if i can post all my equipment shortly that i will have for sale ....plenty of bargains and goodies

Cheers
Dan

Daniel, it is always a tough decision to decide to switch camps, and I am sure you have contemplated this move for a long time. I wish you the best with Canon and I am sure it will a change will not affect your creative powers in the long run.

I will be one that will be left behind in a few years, but until video in SLR becomes something actually usable (ie something to work around the movement caused by zooming and focusing) without expensive steadycams I will not consider it as a feature worth chasing after. I am still struggling to be happy with my stills work, so video will be a format that I will leave alone for now.

I look forward to finding out what was in your Nikon kit (not that I really need anything) as I am intrigued by the kits that Pro's actually use.

Good luck Dan on the move It must be funny how many switch camps for there own reason I Swapped canon to nikon etc
I will wait with interest for the nikon gear to list--jim

dan
i hope we still get to see some of those fantastic portraits of yours even if its taken with a canon, will be watching out for the "sale"


cheers rob

Looking forward to seeing what you have up for grabs as well!

Personally having used both Nikon and Canon I agree both have their pros and cons, but in they both end up about level at the end of the wash. Video is fairly new in both camps and will probably take 1 or 2 more camera releases before they have it down pat - once there they'll all be the same.

Cheers
Tom

You'll like the canons - IMHO I prefer them for their rendition of skintones

jdear wrote:You'll like the canons - IMHO I prefer them for their rendition of skintones

Wow it has been a long time since you have posted as well jdear. WHat have you been up to?

Hi Dan, and good to see you..

I'm a little curious ...

Cre8tivepixels wrote: Nikon 'again' are just dragging the chain at the upper end of pro equipment (period between D200 - D3 anyone).....

During which period of time since the D200's release we've seen the D300, D700, D300s, D3x and D3s ...

.the need for 1080p Video has left Nikon looking foolish with their crappy 720p

A couple of questions here ... how much video do you find yourself shooting? And how much of that extra resolution are you actually able to see, unless your pushing it onto a full HD screen that's larger than about 40"? Below that resolution, we're really doing little more than the video equivalent of pixel peeping and measurebating.

I have no problems with DSLRs giving us video capabilities, but I see that as a secondary feature, rather than a primary consideration.

and codec and constant s and x updates

Well, let's see .. the "s and x updates" are really new models - you'd hardly call the D3 and D3x the same camera - and there's little real difference to Canon issuing endless Mark whatever variants on the the EOS1D models .. and your "s and x updates" comment really contradicts your first statement regarding any perceived lack of model introductions.

And the codec updates? How many firmware updates has the 7D had in its short life? And while Canon want to place the 1D Mk IV as a competitor to the D3s, it's sensor size just doesn't bring it into that space in the market.

so i will ask Gary if i can post all my equipment shortly that i will have for sale ....plenty of bargains and goodies

That's obviously your call (and not an issue for me) but I can't help but think that you're not considering all of the points correctly.

gstark wrote:How many firmware updates has the 7D had in its short life?

Thanks for this Gary. I am annoyed with Canon for having the nerve to include 18 pixels and quite a few dud versions to annoy the hell out of everyone.


As a serious question. Isn't the high end pro models (plus high end lens choices) quite similar in both camps??? Slight difference may be 1200mm 5.6, and TSE 17mm and the crazy 5X macro by canon?

aim54x wrote:without expensive steadycams

Expensive or not, I think you will always need to steady the camera someway (cheapest is physically steadying it perhaps with a dolly or something) while you are doing the zooming, panning etc... Otherwise the lens design will need to change and that will be drastic... Thoughts?

Also OT

Wow it has been a long time since you have posted as well jdear. WHat have you been up to?

Plodding along with my wedding photography - keeping me more than busy - opened up a small office / studio in Bowral. In the middle of the silly season right now - looking foward to winter and doing lots of shoots for myself!

surenj wrote::ot:

gstark wrote:How many firmware updates has the 7D had in its short life?

Thanks for this Gary. I am annoyed with Canon for having the nerve to include 18 pixels and quite a few dud versions to annoy the hell out of everyone.


As a serious question. Isn't the high end pro models (plus high end lens choices) quite similar in both camps??? Slight difference may be 1200mm 5.6, and TSE 17mm and the crazy 5X macro by canon?

aim54x wrote:without expensive steadycams

Expensive or not, I think you will always need to steady the camera someway (cheapest is physically steadying it perhaps with a dolly or something) while you are doing the zooming, panning etc... Otherwise the lens design will need to change and that will be drastic... Thoughts?

Surenj, can I say that the 1200mm would be outdone by NIkons 1200-1700mm zoom, but we dont have the TSE17 or the MPE65, we do however have a very useful 200-400mm f/4 VR. Realistically, of the normally used lenses in the high end (14-600mm) both companies are close enough.

In reply to steadying a video camera....the set up of a proper video camera lends itself well to shoulder mounted operation, a DSLR cannot do this, and for your average person you have the choice of jerky video or a restrictive tripod. Even specialised mounting systems cannot completely remove the jelly effect during panning as that is due to the design of the SLR shutter (which we dont want to change....right?)

I can appreciate the choice to move to Canon because of how the images straight out of the camera look, or even for the preference to their ergonomics and design.
However, dismissing Nikon for running with 720p video (in a dSLR camera), in my opinion seems misinformed.

Whilst I agree video technology is moving ahead in leaps and bounds (becoming part of many differwnt mobile devices), I'm not convinced they will ever really make the jump to compete with a dedicated video camera.

Just like video cameras have a "still photo" feature, they don't compare to a quality dSLR...and vice versa.

Also, in regards to the 720p vs 1080p and to re-iterate what Gary has pointed out, 1080p is not essential for video and there are other considerations that go along with video to produce great "picture quality"
The codec/compression used, bitrate and other factors all have a hand in how video looks onscreen....not to mention what the output device is doing to the video..
1080 is not the be-all-and-end-all for video and 720 can be a very good compromise, particularly for a device that is treating video as a secondary priority.

As others have also pointed out, there are still functional issues related to using video with dSLR's, which I'm sure in time will improve, however so will their dedicated video camera counterparts.

I would ask you these questions:
- would your clients get a videographer to shoot video of them AND take photos at the same time (using their vid cam) ?
- if the answer is NO, would they want their photographer to take video of them with their dSLR ?

I am not trying to persuade you to stay with Nikon, but would ask you to reconsider all the facts, and the reasons why you want to make the shift, before making the move.

If Canon is the better tool for you, then the decision is easy.

Dan, enjoy your switch to Canon and enjoy paying less for your lenses and dont forget that all the software is you need is provided with the camera. You will notice the difference in video, especially on the big screens which are so popular now. Your business model obviously allows you to switch so go for it.

Dan, does the stills produced while in video mode have equal pixel count and quality as the stills produced in stills mode?
if not then you will need to use two cameras at the same time.
I've been shooting a Video and DSLR at the same time at 4WD events but as you can't see through both at the same time i usually shoot a little wider with the DSLR which allows me room to crop if necessary then i watch through the viewfinder of the Video in my right hand while following along and shooting the DSLR with my left hand.
The Video is much better than the DSLR and a heap lighter as well, I use a panasonic 3 CCD video and the footage is used on 4WDTV.

Aussie Dave wrote:However, dismissing Nikon for running with 720p video (in a dSLR camera), in my opinion seems misinformed.

its not just about 720p, its also the look of nikon video vs canon. there is the jello effect that the d300s and d90 have with video which is very goddam annoying and the delays in recording video from still that canon have sorted a little better. imo, neither canon or nikon have video right at the moment. it feels clunky and added on as opposed to panasonic who have it done seamlessly.

of much bigger concern is the systems direction and all signs are nikon have forgotten the top end in lens updates. i would move cos of the better, (and cheaper), lens selection. this is the last year with nikon for me unless they significantly improve the gaps.

in saying all that i think dan has been frustrated with nikon for some time so really, this was not a surprising move.

on a bit of a tangent here though...i think alot of people are seriously underestimating the commercial quality of video. by commerical i'm talking about what CUSTOMERS want as opposed to what photographers want or think they need. not sure what anyone else shoots but over the last 6 months i've been flat out with family/ kids portraits. almost all of these sessions result in a dvd with all the photos loaded up so people can watch them on their big screens. sadly, the issue of large prints are a dying breed, at least for the customers i've been seeing. there is normally 1 or 2 large prints and a few smaller prints for grandparents etc, but the real excitement is with the dvd which i normally whack in all sorts of photos and put it with music of the clients choice. peoples use of photos has changed dramatically and that move has predominantly about convenience and accessibility of the images on a TV rather than a photo album.

when i was using a Mkii for a while i put in some small clips of video, we're talking small 5-15 second clips and customers LOVE it. all of my work comes from referral and guess what the winner is ? the small clips built into the photo dvd. since then i've been shooting these small clips on my lx3 but its infinitely more difficult for me to do that cos i have to use 2 items.

video is here to stay and its a major advantage and selling point so while i dont think proper video is too far away for nikon its a bigger gap than alot of people seem to want to acknowledge.

Dan, completely understand that you want to get the best platform for your business model. I'm not big on video but certainly most places I have read about it do point to Canon when you want video on a DSLR.

I don't necessarily think that Nikon are dragging the chain as Canon has made this market segment and they have marketed it very well. Canon have been in the video market for a long time so not surprising they have an edge on Nikon.

Good luck in switching to Canon, I'm sure you will get some great photos with that gear too

cheers

André

Swapping Camps based on Video - Mistake.

Now we do both (vid & stills) so long before the fan fare of photographers putting a little video in with their images became trendy we and many others had been doing this for well over a decade. Recently I purchased a D90 to play with the video (yes 720P). I wanted to get first hand experience of what people like Chase Jarvis, Scott Bourne and others where speaking off.

While I have been having fun shooting video with shallow depth of field it's just a tool. A tool and I know there are better DSLR's with better video features but we would never not have our deadicated video camera's. Infact my experience sent me running back to the bank and purchasing our second Canon HD video camera. Take say a 5DMkII put it in a video shaped body with inbuilt XLR adapters and all that good video stuff then you might get me interesred but then it really just becomes a video camera.

Hudo

Rooz wrote:video is here to stay

But is that enough reason to change brands on a DSLR ?

gstark wrote: Rooz wrote:video is here to stay

But is that enough reason to change brands on a DSLR ?

Gary, I think Creative pixels is implying that money is the reason he is switching. He might be losing customers or be able to gain more customers by including video?

At least the 24-70 would be cheaper? But no 12-24 though...

surenj wrote:

gstark wrote: Rooz wrote:video is here to stay

But is that enough reason to change brands on a DSLR ?

Gary, I think Creative pixels is implying that money is the reason he is switching. He might be losing customers or be able to gain more customers by including video?

I don't accept that.

If you're losing customers, it would have nothing to do with your gear. If you think you might gain some customers by offering a product, then perhaps, but (a) do one's customers dictate - or have anything at all - do do with the choices of gear we use? and (b) in the hands of a competent operator, and as we know, the gear is but a tool that is used.

And none of this is meant to be a be a reflection upon Dan or anybody else. This is merely my opinion.

gstark wrote:

Rooz wrote:video is here to stay

But is that enough reason to change brands on a DSLR ?

for me ? no.

Rooz wrote:all signs are nikon have forgotten the top end in lens updates.

Rooz, I think YOU have forgotten:
12-24 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8 VRII
50mm f/1.4G

Yes they need to work on their primes now, but they have certainly not neglected the top end zooms.

Mr Darcy wrote:

Rooz wrote:all signs are nikon have forgotten the top end in lens updates.

Rooz, I think YOU have forgotten:
12-24 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8 VRII
50mm f/1.4G

Yes they need to work on their primes now, but they have certainly not neglected the top end zooms.

i havent forgotten. i should have been more specific though, i meant top end primes.

Rooz wrote:

Mr Darcy wrote:

Rooz wrote:all signs are nikon have forgotten the top end in lens updates.

Rooz, I think YOU have forgotten:
12-24 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8 VRII
50mm f/1.4G

Yes they need to work on their primes now, but they have certainly not neglected the top end zooms.

i havent forgotten. i should have been more specific though, i meant top end primes.

They have just released the new 300 2.8, which I would say would be the first off the rank for the longer primes, and the teleconverters are being updated

there are a couple of things that canon ha over nikon

1. the lens mount is bigger and fatter and tighter hence the lens attaches to the body more sturdier

2. most l series lenses have a rubber sealer on the lens to waterproof the camera better

3. more range in high end telephoto lenses

4. the 85mm f1.2

5. a shorter off camera cord which is useful if you use a bracket nikons sc-29 cord is way too long

hope you make the switch when the mark 4 comes out

and good luck with your endeavours

wendellt wrote:hope you make the switch when the mark 4 comes out

The Mark IV is likely to be a farce. I'm sorry, but there's something almost sad about trying to market a crop camera as a competitor for a full frame camera.

tommyg wrote:
They have just released the new 300 2.8, which I would say would be the first off the rank for the longer primes, and the teleconverters are being updated

yes they have and its one of the lens' nikon have that did not need an update. while they are upgrading one of the best tele primes on the face of the planet, they continue to neglect every other short-medium FAST prime and on their one attempy at an update, they fell well short of the mark with the 50/1.4G.

I love these discussions, based primarily on subjective personal preferences, but
ultimately they must be a wet dream for camera manufacturers.

Similar discussions could be had (or could have been had), with varying degrees of
emotion and possibly stridency, about

Holden v Ford
PC v Mac
VHS v Beta (ahh, memories)
Intel v AMD
Liberal v Labor
BluRay v HD DVD (like VHS/Beta, resolved)
Boeing v Airbus
Carlton and United v Courage (another old one)
Viagra v Levitra
There are probably two brands of bicycle which would qualify, cyclists are an excitable lot (and the prices of
upscale bikes make photography look like a relatively inexpensive interest!)

and there are undoubtedly others.

Greg B wrote:Holden v Ford

Simple. Neither. Both are crap

Greg B wrote:PC v Mac

Simple we have both.

Greg B wrote:VHS v Beta (ahh, memories)I

Yep. We still have our top load Sony Betamax too.

Greg B wrote:Intel v AMD

Who cares!

Greg B wrote:Liberal v Labor

THere's a difference?

Greg B wrote:BluRay v HD DVD (like VHS/Beta, resolved)

Simple. Neither. See VHS vs Beta

Greg B wrote:Boeing v Airbus

Simple. Boats don't fall out of the sky.

Greg B wrote:Carlton and United v Courage (another old one)

Both Victorian. See Holden Vs Ford.

Greg B wrote:Viagra v Levitra

Who needs 'em

Rooz wrote:

tommyg wrote:
They have just released the new 300 2.8, which I would say would be the first off the rank for the longer primes, and the teleconverters are being updated

yes they have and its one of the lens' nikon have that did not need an update. while they are upgrading one of the best tele primes on the face of the planet, they continue to neglect every other short-medium FAST prime and on their one attempt at an update, they fell well short of the mark with the 50/1.4G.

There is also talk of a revamped 85 coming soon. I'm quite happy with the 1.4G as a short prime - where do you think they fell short?

Also, whilst comparing lenses between the 2, canon don't have a lens that comes close to the 14-24 2.8

But as said each camp has its plus and minuses, so long as you aren't using Sony!

tommyg wrote:There is also talk of a revamped 85 coming soon.

they've been talking about it for 5 years. lol

I'm quite happy with the 1.4G as a short prime - where do you think they fell short?

the AF is far to slow. the IQ is very good but its beaten out by its sigma counterpart. remember that lens' dont get updated very often so its important that when they release a lens that its bloody right !!

Also, whilst comparing lenses between the 2, canon don't have a lens that comes close to the 14-24 2.8

perhaps not but they do have WA zooms that are excellent in quality AND take filters. and while i agree the 14-24 is bad ass, the canon range of short-medium fast glass more than makes up for it. oh...and whats the bet the new canon 24-70/2.8 will have IS ?

I love these discussions, based primarily on subjective personal preferences, but
ultimately they must be a wet dream for camera manufacturers

I personally don't, I question anyone who comes along and drops a loaded grenade like this - really, everyone knows that 'moving to [insert appropriate brand here]' and 'goodbye [insert appropriate brand here]' is gonna just create a thread liek this...

that said there is some good discussions regarding various option under different brands, its just a shame it has to under a thread like this..

I am sure whatever Dan uses he will still produce stunning shots - like some of the ones we used to see here 12 months ago...

Surely if you were serious about video you'd buy a video camera. While a Canon DSLR may do better video than a Nikon DSLR, they are both a compromise when compared to a dedicated video camera. I'm sure a professional still photographer wouldn't turn up to a shoot armed with just a "point and shoot". I don't understand why a professional videographer would use a DSLR.

A DSLR with video is just another tool.. While you can shoot a short film or promo on it (with limitations) for me it would only serve 5% of the needs of a videographer. Dedicated video is the way to go. I would prfer to see a photographer buy a seperate DSLR to use for video. I know of many pro's who have just done that. Set them up with a dedicated Beachtek XLR input adaptor and even a steady cam rig.....

I'm sure many in the field photojourilists enjoy having the video feature as well. Apart from all the back of house required there is no way I could run the video side of my business purley on a DSLR with video be it having one or several.

Hudo PS Pentouse V Playboy

ATJ wrote:Surely if you were serious about video you'd buy a video camera. While a Canon DSLR may do better video than a Nikon DSLR, they are both a compromise when compared to a dedicated video camera. I'm sure a professional still photographer wouldn't turn up to a shoot armed with just a "point and shoot". I don't understand why a professional videographer would use a DSLR.

not for a videographer of course, different ballpark and the limiting video of a dslr would obviously be prohibitive if its 100% of your job. but unless you shoot with RED or in perfect light, dslr completely blows away video cams in terms of image quality. and for 3 KEY reasons.

1. with dslr the WA end is covered far better than video cams which are typically around 40mm at the widest. i found that incredibly limiting with video cams.
2. anything over iso400ish the video cam sucks ass. dslr video looks great at iso3200.
3. DOF control

1. with dslr the WA end is covered far better than video cams which are typically around 40mm at the widest. i found that incredibly limiting with video cams.
2. anything over iso400ish the video cam sucks ass. dslr video looks great at iso3200.
3. DOF control

All true and excellent points. However I find the 80/20 rule in play. if your a general videographer, weddings, corporate events, ads, product speals ect then you'll only use these features 20% of the time. Dedicated video camera and when you need this capability then grab the right tool.

Dan

I am not going to bother joining either the Nikon or Canon (or Pentax or...) fanboys. What I find interesting about this is how slow you've been switching to Canon and the amazing sense of deja vu here. Some samples from your posts:

http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=24733

Dan on 6 Mar 2007 wrote:BIG DEAL NIKON!!!!!

Jesus....get ur act together and give "high" end users a FF LOW NOISE CMOS sensor.

...

Well i must say i am pissed of and fed up with Nikon......thats it!

Canon here i come....fire sale of all my stuff....see lenses below.....can i talk to a mod about selling some stuff please?

http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27516&p=308901

Dan on 23 Jul 2007 wrote:Hmmm, decisions decisions........lol

Nikon v Canon........
...
I now have (because i scored one for next to nothing a 350D - that i am going to use for low light shooting etc) and if i start seeing Canon L series lenses here and there for great prices i may take the plunge and the trickle could become a flood.....not sure yet.....i am however holding back to see what Nikon have up their sleeve next!

...

I am NOT jumping ship for a 350D i got one for next too nothing as i said...its now there so that at least i can start seeing whats out there lens wise........my D200 is still VERY much KING!

http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=34928&p=375915#p375915

Dan on 29 Nov 2008 wrote:I am just going to bite the bullet and get a 5D MII and the 70-200mm and shoot with both Nikon and Canon....best of both worlds

Peter you have a memory like an elephant!

Maybe Nikon users have better memory than Canon?

surenj wrote:Peter you have a memory like an elephant!

Maybe Nikon users have better memory than Canon?

I don't think he's the only one to remember these posts, just the only one sensible enough to point them out rather that argue the merits of 6 vs a half dozen

dawesy wrote:argue the merits of 6 vs a half dozen

6 is always better than half a dozen. Come on you knew that?

surenj wrote:

dawesy wrote:argue the merits of 6 vs a half dozen

6 is always better than half a dozen. Come on you knew that?

Maybe he is a baker?

Reschsmooth wrote:

surenj wrote:

dawesy wrote:argue the merits of 6 vs a half dozen

6 is always better than half a dozen. Come on you knew that?

Maybe he is a baker?

Who knew a can of worms could have another can inside it!

dawesy wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:

surenj wrote:

dawesy wrote:argue the merits of 6 vs a half dozen

6 is always better than half a dozen. Come on you knew that?

Maybe he is a baker?

Who knew a can of worms could have another can inside it!

I guess you would then be doing the cancan!

dawesy wrote:Who knew a can of worms could have another can inside it!

As long as there is 6 worms in the can not half a dozen.

@#%&

LMAo....... ahh stubbsy good to see nothing has changed here in the time i have been absent (and easy to see why i no longer post here) ....its so easy to cut and paste something like that together to suit your argument/dislike (do people ever let go lol) of me isnt it? .....well heres a thought , yeah ur right i was crapping on back then when i never even knew what a Dslr was and never had a business/studio but then along came the D3 which BLEW everything out of the water and the rest is history - 2 VERY HAPPY YEARS and a THRIVING BUSINESS LATER....BUT that was TWO years ago with the D3 and two years on no sign of a new model replacing it.....and heres another thought i didnt SHOOT for an income or have the same business/studio plan/model i do now....so again things change and can do in a rather short space of time.....what a self indulgent blah blah fest (dont you have better things to do with your time) sorting thru and posting BS (yes what i said back then was largely misinformed) i said 3 years ago!!! I was going to post a decent reply and try to answer some VERY good (Gary etc) points raised but that post by you stubbsy, well i couldn't be bothered nor do i have the time nor energy to explain why i do this or that .....its purely a horses for courses type arrangement and at the moment Canon are leaping further and further in front again...NIKON in all likely hood may come up and suprise us all with a new model ....its in my interests that they do .....my original post wasn't slamming Nikon nor was it negative, it was rather sad for me to post that to be honest, i posted it to simply tip off interested parties for my much loved Nikon gear (and 'edit small' rant)......not to spark a debate on the merits of this or that ...simple really !

why are you so angry ? chill out man.

Rooz wrote:why are you so angry ?

Embarrassment would be my guess.

Please, everybody ... let's keep away from comments of a personal nature.

Cre8tivepixels wrote: but then along came the D3 which BLEW everything out of the water and the rest is history - 2 VERY HAPPY YEARS and a THRIVING BUSINESS LATER....BUT that was TWO years ago with the D3 and two years on no sign of a new model replacing it.....

Except for the D3x and D3s models ....

But I also want to make the observation that I think we have been seeing way too many models being released by most of the camera manufacturers.

Let's take a few steps and consider how long cameras like Canon's F1 and A1 (and related models), and Nikons F2/F3 and FE/FM etc were actively available in the marketplace for? We're talking about periods of five plus years ... and while the FM was originally released in the late 1970s, the FM10 was still available, new, just a few short years ago.

Cameras were able to serve us, functionally, for a number of years. These days there's a lot of marketing pressure to try to get the latest and greatest out "there", but to what outcome? There's a shitload of hype around many models and features, but do we really need or use those features?

Do those features make us better photographers? Why do we need so many different models, and so many different features?

I'd be willing to contend that the multitude of features on our camera bodies is exactly like the multitude of features that we find in MS word today: nice to have, but we will rarely if ever, stray into more than about 15% of the functionality provided.

gstark wrote:consider how long cameras like Canon's F1 and A1 (and related models), and Nikons F2/F3 and FE/FM etc were actively available in the marketplace for? We're talking about periods of five plus years ... and while the FM was originally released in the late 1970s, the FM10 was still available, new, just a few short years ago.

Actually the FM10 is still on Nikon Australia's price lists....I did consider one...but then I picked up my beloved FM2n.