There's a lot made about switching camera brands, with comparison of specs and the latest features driving most of the discussion. However, this thoughtful video essay takes a much more pragmatic approach to the question, and it's well worth watching.
Coming to you from Sean Tucker, this great video takes a look at a common question among photographers and videographers and details both why he switched camera brands and his thought process behind doing so. It's certainly very interesting to hear the story behind how Tucker came to own three distinct sets of gear and how his desire to consolidate all that extra equipment into one set drove his decision, but it's the second half of the video that details his decision process and the philosophies that drove it that's especially worth applying to your own experience. Most of us are tempted at one point or another by the allure of the latest and greatest, and I'll be the first to admit that there's certainly a bit of fun in geeking out over the newest gear, but we have to be careful not to confuse that with understanding what the best tool is for our professional work.
Be sure to check out Tucker's book and prints as well.
I dunno, if I think a given camera will offer me some advantage, I go out and buy it. I don't need dump my existing system and investments for it. I have cameras from Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic. No, I'm not rich either. I simply make use of all my resources. I don't see the point of dumping investments and losing money for the latest toy from brand X.
I mean, in fairness, that's basically what he did, until he had accumulated three complete systems of gear and he decided to consolidate.
And you don't consider having a camera that you don't use losing money?
Just because I buy a new camera doesn't mean I stop using another one. I buy a camera because it allows me to do something the other doesn't, and vice-versa. No waste.
Professionally speaking, that's called an emergency backup. So no, it's not losing money. It's a very, very cheap insurance policy.
As a full-time photographer, this is one of my pet peeves when it comes to "upgrading". For the 15 years that DSLRs have been "mainstream", I've seen countless photographers upgrade from one camera to another, only ever owning one camera at a time, but then they get into professional photography, (usually portraits or weddings) ...and they get in real trouble when they experience equipment failure.
Always keep a backup around. Sometimes it's good to even have a 3rd backup!
There are many sides to this, may it be backup, nostalgia to not get rid a camera you used for a long time or as Spy Black says every camera has it's unique offers and i cannot really argue with the last 2.
But considering from a purely economical point of view i would apply the principals of industrial production that is to utilize the expensive equipment as much as possible. If i have 6 cameras, from 6 different brand and i use them all equally then i "lose money" on the downtime of the cameras and lenses compared to only using 2 cameras from 1 brand. It is not only the money i spent in the first place, but also the decreasing re-sell value.
That just to explain my reason behind the "losing money" statement.
As a professional it might be very very cheap for you as the gear already paid for itself in it's earlier lifespan. But wouldn't it be more efficient to get the same camera (or at least same brand) twice and get rid of everything else and thus saving money on having two or more lens parks?
Indeed, I gave the specific example that I did because that is the full extent of the philosophy behind "having a backup". If you own /six/ cameras, let alone all from different brands, then you're a camera hoarder who needs to get help. Or just find pride in the nostalgia / collectibility of owning that many cameras, if they're not worth much.
So, having /a/ camera that you don't use /much/ is still considered a backup, if you ever shoot in any type of condition where failure would be extremely, extremely undesirable. (paid or not)
It goes without saying that if you buy a 1DX2, a D5, or an A9, ...and then decide later that you bought way too much camera and all you really need is one 5D4, D850/D750, or A7Riii/A7iii, then it means, 1.) you're likely an idiot who doesn't understand how to buy the right camera gear in the first place, and, 2.) yes, you should probably just sell off that $4-5K camera, and buy 2 of the cheaper cameras that better suit your needs. Or, for example, just buy one D850, and one D750 as the backup, if you're on a (professional) low budget.
Either way, I think we get each others' points.
What I want to know is...what relevance does this article or his opinion have to do with photography? Furthermore, I don't see why anyone would care why he switched camera companies.
People should care because he's a pragmatic and articulate photographer who gives some helpful guidelines that are particularly beneficial to beginners and newer professionals who need a little guidance before they drop a lot of money on camera gear.
I understand his point of view. I'm not being critical of him or his video. I just think it's not beneficial to a beginning photographer to confuse the issue by stating why someone switches camera manufacturers. It would be much more beneficial to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a particular brand and how it benefits them than why they switched brands. While I own mostly Nikon equipment, I do have a Panasonic G9 that I use if I want to record video and the Sony RX10 IV as a pick up and go camera.
True, but the key words here are "benefits for him." Most people don't care how it benefits a particular individual.
That could be said about every single Youtube video or celebrity "new" that's floating around and i couldn't agree more. Why would one care what any of these people do.
Why i like Sean Tuckers videos is, that he has a very philosophical approach to his video and goes into a lot of detail what his reasons are. For me that provides somewhat of an inspiration to my own thoughts on how to develop as a photographer (not talking about gear now).
He evens says, that nobody should just go ahead and copy what he does. But then again he's earning money from Youtube and a lot of people on Youtube are crazy for gear recommendations.
The only Youtuber I really listen to is Chris Nichols of the Camera Store and now DPreview. Not only does he know what he's talking about, but gives it to you straight about the gear he's reviewing. However, I don't base my purchases on his opinion alone. If I'm uncertain, then I'll rent the equipment for a week or two and try it myself.
An addendum to my previous comment would be that there are many "pragmatic and articulate" photographers out there, Alex. However, most consumers, whether beginning or newer professional photographers, are intelligent enough to research the various offerings from camera companies before they part with their money.
I wouldn't be so sure :-)
I've lost count of the number of folks I've seen with entry-level dSLRs and really poor technique. To me, that suggests that if they haven't researched how to even hold the camera, they probably haven't researched the pros and cons of one brand over another.
This leads on to a theory of mine: People (rookies) buy SLR cameras because "that's what the pros use", therefore that's what they need to take better photos.
From my own observation, well over 50% of smaller SLR owners have poor technique. This backs up my theory that rookies are buying SLRs by price and perceived usefulness of the tool, not by brand or research or skill level improvement.
I certainly agree with you on the technique part of your comment. I think every beginning photographer should take at least one photography class if they don't know how to operate their equipment.The same holds true for me as well. Had I taken a few classes, I could've learned how to use my equipment faster and better. I learn something new everyday. I'm not a "fanboy" of one brand over another. In fact, I own Nikon, Panasonic, and Sony equipment. I use the equipment that best suits my needs for a given situation.
I started shooting on film and when I finally moved to digital, I thought that I'd learnt all I was going to.
Rookie move. I learnt as much in my first month of digital shooting as the five years prior film experience.
If I'd taken a photography class back in the film days, I'd not have done any better, however now that new photographers tend to use digital that's not the case.
I agree that in the age of digital photography, taking a class if you're a rookie is probably a good investment. You'd save yourself a ton of time and frustration.
I tend to agree with you. As I mentioned before on this website, I'm by no stretch of the imagination a professional photographer. I consider myself an enthusiastic enthusiast photographer. In fact, I didn't even own a real camera until about 3 years ago. Now, I take photos every chance I have free time away from my plumbing business.
The big crowd are sheep. If a Youtuber tells them this or that gear is the best they go and buy it.
I've recently seen people buying a D850, just because it's "the best", then only shoot JPEG and complain that the pictures are not exposed properly and so much worse than their old D90.
Or overhearing a salesperson in a big electronic store recommending a 5D or 6D to a customer who literally said he never held a camera before just because "it offers full frame quality images". And consumers go for that cause they trust these people for some reason.
To sum up, most consumers are stupid, that's how the market works.
I wouldn't go as far as saying "most consumers are stupid." A more accurate description would be that most consumers are misinformed or mislead or influenced by camera company sponsored Youtubers. I rarely purchase my camera gear from a big box retailer. And when I do, I don't need the salesperson to pitch to me concerning the equipment I'm about to buy. Because most of the sales people haven't a clue of what they're selling or how to operate it.
And yet these big retailers exist.
They have higher prices than the web-shops and, as you agree, low quality of consultation (for the most parts).
Agreed. I rarely purchase anything that is a little more complex and expensive without doing thorough research, but i doubt the majority of consumers acts like that.
True. Many people make their purchasing decisions based on "so-called" experts opinions.
I found his video to be more philosophical and don't think it was aimed at beginner photographers. It seemed to be aimed at photographers with more experience and gave food for thought for "why / when" to switch if it was something a more experienced photographer may have been considering / struggling with.
I've done it twice in the past few years. In both times the decision was quite easy. I wanted to upgrade my camera body to avail of technology advances which opened up shoot possibilities, not available at the time from within the brand I was using. In both cases I did my research about what it would cost. I weighed up the realistic cost of selling my current equipment to fund its replacement and for me it was worth it. Its never been a case of whether or not a client can see the difference. Its more that some shots available to them, simply wouldn't have existed with the previous gear I was using.
While that's certainly possible, and I have no reason to doubt your case, I think that's a rarity these days when even mediocre cameras are pretty phenomenal.
I've never used a Canon before. I've heard of the DR thing but always thought it was overblown. I'd never heard of the spot metering issue. Is that with newer midrange and better cameras, also?
Yup, those are two reasons why I always stuck with Nikon, even when Canon had slightly better options in the era pre-D700. I loved the dynamic range, and the AF/metering versatility...
We can talk about "it's just a matter of preference" all day long, but the bottom line is that yes, some people do indeed push their gear to its limits, enough that only a certain system will actually meet their needs.
Actual superiority/inferiority exists, people. It's still dependent upon subject matter and shooting style, but it is definitely more than just personal preference and one's ability to "adapt" to a new system. Actual superiority/inferiority exists. Get over it!
All Canon cameras since 2014 have had spot metering. The 50D from 2008 had spot metering too.
Yes pretty much all modern cameras are amazing (relatively speaking), but that still doesn't mean they're equal.
Just to use the example of modern mirrorless cameras picking focus directly from the sensor, unlike DSLR's (hense the issue DSLR's face with forward/back focusing with certain lens, calibration issues etc). Thats a fundamental technology difference that cannot be argued. Its simply a fact.
If you regularly shoot wide open at f1.4 your accuracy with something like a Sony A7R III is going to be more consistent then a DSLR. Of course you "could" perfectly nail focus at f1.4 on any DSLR, nobody would argue that. You just might not get it exactly when you want it though, and that's the point.
Advances in modern tech mean you're more likely to get the shot, when you want to get it. I've always had high end DSLR's and still have had to dis-guard many shots where the models expression was great but focus just wasn't quite accurate enough. So far because of my recent camera change, that hasn't been an issue I've had to worry about.
I don't mean the post to be all about mirrorless. The point about about Canon's lack of dynamic range is just as valid. Yes you "could" expose differently on the Canon to get similar results, but why compromise your workflow when other brands allow you to get the results you want.
The point I'm making in a long winded way is, people often dismiss camera changes and especially brand changes as being unjustified. I don't think anybody is under the illusion that a bad photographer with one brand of camera will magically become a good photographer with another brand. However if there are fundamental differences that allow you to achieve shots you couldn't otherwise (or at least not without compromise) then it's a perfectly rational and justified decision to change camera brands.
It was a good video. Use the "box" as a tool, not a status symbol or a crutch. That said, I have considered switching brands myself but haven't done it yet. My first "real" camera was Canon but I've used Nikons professionally. While, just like him, Canon will always have a place in my heart, I may make the permanent switch to Nikon for my personal gear as well.
Sean's comments about Canon - Yeah, so true. Canon need to realise that whilst there are still people with the means to spend big on cinema cameras, Canon isn't their first choice. Canon needs to stop being so precious with their C-series. If it can't stand on it's own, then it's only being held afloat by the D-series and should be left to drown, instead of dragging the D-series with it.
I still enjoy using my Canon dSLR, but buying a Panasonic has rekindled my love of photography. Unless Canon does announce a compelling option in the next few months, I'll have zero hesitation in selling the rest of my Canon gear and going full Panasonic.
Somebody noted that they don't see the point of dumping investments (existing systems) - This is fear. Fear of losing money, fear of "being wrong" about a system, fear of the unknown (what will come next). We can't allow fear to control our decisions on art or business.
Maybe it's time to just stop mentioning brands at all and just talk about photography since any camera can produce amazing work if used right. I would rather see new photographers learn to take awesome pictures than see a ton buy a certain brand and post crap cause they never learned to take a picture.
Great point, David! There are too many "so called" professionals on this site and many, many others touting brand A over brand B...A.K.A. "fanboys." These sites need to edit potential posts and weed out anything that doesn't relate to actual photography instruction or unbiased reviews of cameras. These sites need to focus on what is important to photographers...and it's NOT why someone switches from one brand to another.
That’s literally what he said in the video; he prefaced his entire discussion with the point that if you can’t make the shots you want with any brand, you need to work on your own skills.
I've never claimed to be a pro and everyone can improve on their photographic skills. With that being said, I don't need YOU or anyone else telling me what I should and shouldn't do, either.
As a landscape photographer, I couldn't say that with a straight face for a whole decade while Canon's dynamic range was so horrible, and Nikon's (and eventually Sony's as well) was so far beyond it.
However with the progress Canon is making with the 5D4, they're at least on the right track, and I can once again (for the most part) vaguely encourage people to just pick whichever system feels right for them...
Of course if we look at the drange (dmax-dmin) of a print, the dynamic range from Canon is fine on almost any substrate you care to mention. Gamut may be an issue, but dynamic range should not.
That would, quite literally, be assuming you either shoot JPG, or don't adjust the tones of your raw photos before printing them.
With a raw file that has ~15 EVs of DR, you can capture a scene with that much DR, and then process it to "fit within" the range of a print. That's how it works. Forget digital, that's even what Ansel Adams did with B&W film- capture as much DR as possible on the film, and then burn & dodge etc.to fit as much DR as possible within the constraints of the print.
It would seem that there's been a miscommunication. We appear to agree that even if Canon really does have poor DR (which I personally doubt), it is still more than required if the output is a print.
With regard to gamut, that's always an issue - You always have to soft-proof to see how out of gamut colours are converted.
Indeed, my idea is not being explained well enough I suspect. My apologies for not finding a good enough way to make this clear. However, forgive me for persisting, because I'm actually working on an eBook on this concept, and I'd like to try and get it right, otherwise I'll be in real trouble LOL.
I understand that print output is always a constraint, as is the DR of any LCD display. However, through in-camera processing, the DR of the scene can be made to fit the DR of the LCD, (or the print) by way of things like "DRO" (Canon/Sony) or "ADL" (Nikon)...
This feature significantly boosts the shadows of the scene, (and sometimes under-exposes the highlights as well, depending on the shooting mode) so that the JPG image (the preview of the RAW file, too) shows the full dynamic range of a scene, even if that DR is far greater than what the LCD could natively show.
And yeah, in the era of the 5D2/3, and the D800/D800e, there was a HUGE difference in dynamic range, and Canon shooters were hard-pressed to capture a variety of different scenes with a single click, due to severe shadow noise. Landscape photographers in particular dumped their 5D2's and 5D3's en masse, because the D800 set such an incredible standard. I know I threw away all my GND filters when I first tried the D800e, and slashed my need to bracket/HDR by 90% or more.
Printing is such a complicated subject. C-type vs inkjet prints is in itself a big mess of an argument, let alone what colour space you use or any other considerations, like substrate choice. If you're interested, this article is a good read: https://www.breathingcolor.com/blog/guide-to-digital-printing-part-1/
Regarding Canon and shadow noise... Don't get me started ;-)
I ended up setting +2/3 stops exposure comp and even then, sometimes having to push exposure a bit more. On my 70D I found that I could overexpose hightlights by 1/3 - 1/2 stops before recovery was impossible. This extreme approach to ETTR was necessary just to give me a fighting chance of clean shadows if I had to add a little in post. I try to avoid boosting shadows by any more than 2/3 - 1 stop, otherwise it's time to reduce noise.
My Panasonic on the other hand, whilst having less DR appears to have more _usable_ DR. Of course, the type of photo that I take contributes to that. No bright sky and pitch black shadows for me usually.
Having been a digital camera user since 2003 or 2004, I folllowed Canon and Nikon's sensor development pretty closely since about 2005.
I think Canon simply made a fundamental mistake in understanding how photosites gather photons, and how those photons are tallied up by the electronics.
Canon was often touted as having amazing highlight recovery; I remember the first raw shooters (yeah, it used to be all JPG and TIF!) who first started bragging about how amazing their highlight recovery was on their 1Ds or their 5D, showing examples of pure white skies being magically recovered to have decent detail.
With time, Nikon on the other hand slowly dug deeper and deeper into the realm of shadow recovery. And, as we now know, that proved to be the smarter direction to R&D, because an overflowed photosite is an overflowed photosite, whereas a nearly-black photosite with just a few photons in it can always be improved, theoretically.
Anyways, that's my point- If you have an extremely, extremely dynamic scene, and if for whatever reason you're only able to use a single click to capture it, then Nikon/Sony sensors have a massive amount of DR with which to capture that scene. And, furthermore, that massive amount of DR can be processed in-camera to display both preserved highlighs and recovered shadows, quite clearly and crisply even in a DR-limited EVF or print medium.