DSLRUsers.com

As the title states, Nikon or Canon, Pro or Consumer - what does it matter in the end?

I used to work in a camera store in Brisbane on weekends while at uni and we had a number of customers who only bought "pro gear" (in their eyes) and who used to come in and get shots processed that were quite ordinary. Not a problem with this except that these guys thought if they bought the absolute latest and most expensive gear, the quality of their photos would go through the roof. Not alwats the case.

I specialise in nature photography and some of the greatest wildlife photos chosen as section winners for the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year have used a Nikon D70 or a Canon 300D, both classed as "consumer" cameras.

My first ever publishings, accepted by Australian Geographic some years ago, were shots taken with a 1980 Canon A1 35mm and using Sensia 100 slide film.

Sure, buying better quality equipment will help making photography easier in many cases (i.e. more features) but you need to be able to utilise these features in order to gain benefit.

I'd hate to think that there are newer photographers out there who feel they can't take great shots because they don't have the most expensive gear or they have a Nikon instead of a Canon.

What are your thoughts, members?

Cheers

Michael

ps - I have owned Canon and am now Nikon and rate both brands very highly

I agree with you Finch.

However I wonder if there is a phychological thing with having better equipment that allows them to take better shots. If you have a better camera maybe it makes you think more about the shot you are taking.

Equipment definately doesn't make the photographer good!

A quick look through the pbase 'camera' database can confirm this. There are some top notch shots taken with the D70 and other 'consumer' cameras and also some pretty drab ones taken with the D2X and other 'Pro' cameras.

Still doesn't make me want a D2X any less though

Paul

I look at this way - I get the best equipment I can afford, that way I can't blame the equipment for my screw ups

Seriously, I buy good equipment because I don't want to be let down due to poor equipment. The 300D didn't have MLU or ISO 3200, for example - which ruled it out for me (among other issues) so I got the 20D. I find the kit 18-55 lens too limiting so I got the 17-40. And so on.

It was not "I must have this because it is the most expensive". Had I been buying now, I would be looking very hard at the 350D for example ...

Ford or Holden - in the end they both get you to your destination. The same with Nikon or Canon - they both take pics

sirhc55 wrote:Ford or Holden - in the end they both get you to your destination. The same with Nikon or Canon - they both take pics

I was a holden man, now own a VW. Hope it doesnt mean I will own a sorny.

Finch wrote:What are your thoughts, members?

My thought is that it has been discussed a number of times and the answer is usually "it doesn't matter, but some people like buying toys."

Finch wrote:
I'd hate to think that there are newer photographers out there who feel they can't take great shots because they don't have the most expensive gear or they have a Nikon instead of a Canon.

What are your thoughts, members?

Cheers

Michael

i think part of it relates to how fast the turn around time on processing is now .You shoot and in a minute you can have the result on screen . People are obsessed with sharpness . When everyone shot film .You took your pics , went home , maybe put it in the next day or so got them back the following day and got what ya got . 9 times out of ten 2/3 of them were lame and there maybe a gem or two . Sharpening and colour contrast etc. was not what 99.9 percent of shooters ever thought about or understood how they could alter . Now everyone from Kodak point and shoots to MK2n s is boosting colour,adjusting white balance , sharpening , cropping etc, and its this sort of stuff that has people getting anal about a bit of noise or slightly blurry shots . They see pro shots in internet forums who shoot with Mk2s or Nikon equivelents that have faster auto focusing and better colour capture etc and they want it bad . Its insane . But fun

Great to get some varied responses. Sure, it has been mentioned on the forum before but at the moment there are real changes happening with Nikon users going to Canon, others saying Nikon are better, comparisons of cameras etc, etc.

If you can afford it, and you are going to use many of the features a newer, more expensive camera has to offer, then go for it.

Just think how boring life would be if we were all the same....

Cheers

Michael

Finch wrote:If you can afford it, and you are going to use many of the features a newer, more expensive camera has to offer, then go for it.

In all seriousness, I encourage people to buy expensive toys so that I can borrow them. If I think they can afford them, that is.

Generally I try to buy new gear only when I'm feeling the limits of the old stuff. I've been eyeing the 20D for a while and had it mentally budgeted as "about $2k sometime this year", with a hope that there'd be a replacement at the show in March that would drive the 20D down in price. I got lucky - the 30D price was $2k at release. I was out tonight and really enjoyed the big buffer and 3200ISO aspects of the new toy.

Often I find it hard to tell the difference between improvements because I'm shooting more and improvements because of better gear. I saw a huge leap when I replaced the kit lens with the Sigma 18-50/2.8, because now the 300D would actually focus around sunset, so suddenly I could take photos through Critical Mass much more easily. But the 12-24 really has done nothing except reduce the number of times I shoot panoramas.

Finch wrote:As the title states, Nikon or Canon, Pro or Consumer - what does it matter in the end?

Seriously, the only people i hear debating this are non working photographers. If someone is paying you, and they are happy with what they are getting, then who cares.

I used to work in a camera store in Brisbane on weekends while at uni and we had a number of customers who only bought "pro gear" (in their eyes) and who used to come in and get shots processed that were quite ordinary. Not a problem with this except that these guys thought if they bought the absolute latest and most expensive gear, the quality of their photos would go through the roof. Not alwats the case.

I don't know any working photographers who get prints developed at a camera shop. Cost to much, turn around is to slow, they don't offer print profiles to download, no ability to FTP files to print and don't courier the prints back to you.

I specialise in nature photography and some of the greatest wildlife photos chosen as section winners for the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year have used a Nikon D70 or a Canon 300D, both classed as "consumer" cameras.

My first ever publishings, accepted by Australian Geographic some years ago, were shots taken with a 1980 Canon A1 35mm and using Sensia 100 slide film.

You'll find larger organisations have a minimum resolution that is imposed on photographers. I know Getty only accept D2x, D200 files. Minimum resolution was also the case when i was working for a few national car magazines.

I'd hate to think that there are newer photographers out there who feel they can't take great shots because they don't have the most expensive gear or they have a Nikon instead of a Canon.

What are your thoughts, members?

It's all about the photo and it's application. It's not about the size of your camera bag. Having said that, no point pulling out a D70 if your client wants a billboard image. Also no point using a 18-55mm if you are in a dark church that doesn't allow flash photography. Horses for courses, and the right tool for the right job.

I have to agree with the above post.
I however also think that marketing has a lot to do with things.
The inferment is that Professionals use better quality gear.
Regardless of the fact that I know some professional photographers who are technically excellent, but artistically retarded and other professional photographers who are "The guy in the office who takes the pictures" because nobody else wanted to do it.

The main thing to realise is that nobody has ever been able to look at a photo and tell me what brand and type of camera that it was taken with.

If I can't see a difference with my eyes then there is no point in paying the big dollars unless a camera's functions allow me to do something different.

The forces of marketting are a very devious thing.
Witness the amount of Canon suggestiveness going on in the forums.

whiz wrote:If I can't see a difference with my eyes then there is no point in paying the big dollars unless a camera's functions allow me to do something different.

Actually for a lot of pro gear what you pay for is that the gear will do the same things as the cheap stuff, every time, for a very long time. From simple things like the shutter life (50k activations on a Canon 10D cf 250k on a 1D) to the environmental seals that make it more likely that the camera will work even if there's a bit of rain. Things like extra focus and metering points make it more likely that you'll get the shot.

So what you're paying for is only partly the extra features (which often tanslate simply to "more likely to work"), and quite substantially for the extra reliability.