Changing Brands

[Scott_Witcher]

A few of my fellow photography students at the art collage I attend have sold off their Nikon gear and moved to Canon. To me this seems unwise, very expensive, and unnecessary since the 2mp advantage the 5D has over the D200 would mean only one more inch on the longest side of a 300dpi print.

These students believe that the image quality of the 5D is superior to any current Nikon camera. I personally don't see a big quality difference when looking at Nikon and Canon images, but as one of the few remaining Nikon shooters at my school I'm beginning to wonder what I am missing if anything?

I've never questioned my Nikon gear, I'm just wondering why other are?

[Ron_Hiner]

Here we go again!

Scott -- your brand of camera is the least important variable in making great pictures. You can take great pictures with a Canon -- and you can take great pictures with an oatmeal box.

Cameras don't take pictures -- photographers do.

Let the other students boast about their equipment while you work on your skill set and your vision. You will beat them hands down with whatever camera you've got -- as long as if you are focussed on your work product and not on your equipment.

Ignore them. They know not what matters.

Ron

[Ken_Tanaka]

I could not agree with Ron's remarks more strongly. To them I'll add two remarks.

First, as a student, I highly recommend devoting your creative energies and potentially limited resources to learning the craft. You, and/or your family, are paying probably a great deal of money for a dedicated learning experience, not a shopping derby. A different brand of the same type of camera will teach you nothing whatsoever. It's been my experience that people who seem to be constantly chasing cameras (a) never master the tool they already have and, (b) are generally pretty crappy or mediocre photographers. Truly talented and inspired photographers, particularly young students, have little energy to devote to chasing another camera or lens. They'll create compelling works with disposable cameras if need be. Low and mid-level swimmers, in contrast, always have excuses for middling work and channel their energies toward external solutions (i.e. a different school, a different job, a different camera, a different lens, better models, ad nauseum).

Second, to have any chance of becoming a financially successful photographer you will have to develop a pretty rigorous sense of financial self-discipline. The fact is that most "professional" photographers have have extremely modest net incomes. One of most seminal aspects of such self discipline is eliminating impulse buying. Own and master the equipment that you need to use daily, rent the equipment that you only occasionally need.

Sorry if I sound too fatherly . I guess I'm getting old.

(BTW, this is coming from a Canon shooter.)

[ChrisPerry]

It's not about MP.
It's about noise and the size of the sensor. I've seen what the 5D can do at 1600 and even 3200 ISO - wow. Nikon is getting better, but the last pics i looked at (form a d70) were pretty bad at even 800.

But remember, there will be a new body from Nikon and Canon next year, and the year after and they tend to leapfrog eachother, in some feature or spec.

What are you shooting? The D200 is weather sealed and the 5D is not, and I think the D200 is faster (frames per second), and costs less. For sports or news or PJ the D200 is probably better. For low light weddings the 5D is probably better. For portraits in the studio I doubt anyone could tell the difference.

I agree that it's mostly the photographer and not the equipment, but if equipment didn't matter why doesn't anyone save thousands use oatmeal boxes?

[David_Buzzard]

I'll give you the most important piece of photographic addvice you'll ever get: Never buy a piece of equipment that won't pay for itself.If your shots look fine with what you're using, then stay with it. You can have the best equipment money can buy, but if you have to get a job at Starbucks to pay for it, it's not much good to you.

David Buzzard

[Ian_D_Griffiths]

Hi Scott,

I agree hands down with what the other guys have said about equipment. Like cars it is a money pit, horrendous depreciation and always a new model around the corner.

Until about 10 years ago, generally only a full time pro would spend more than a few hundred pounds on a camera body, the thought of spending £1800 on an EOS 1 sent shivers down most spines, the clever marketing of the camera manufacturers making digital models has changed that to a point that the camera market has mushroomed to unprecedented levels that 10 years ago were the dreams of marketing departments.

No matter what changes the manufacturers make to new models none of them will make you a "better" photographer.

Back in the 70's (Now I'm really showing my age!) David Bailey did a huge advertising campaign for Olympus when they launched the "Trip" take a look at some of the images Bailey took with what probably the start of the serious 'point & shoot' camera, they are outstanding and I think he won some awards (again) for those images.

I employ the use of many sub-contract photographers and I now refuse to have the 'equipment' debate as it is so unproductive, one of my favourite comments to new enquirers is "If you wear your equipment as jewllery, we probably wont get on too well".

My way of justifying equipment uses the following criteria:

1. Do I need it?
2. Can I do the job without it?
3. Will it help me sell more photographs?
4. Will it pay for itself in 1 year?
5. Can I afford it?

Amongst my camera gear I still have a couple of Kodak DCS520's, both are over 5 years old and I still use these for motocross, I would estimate that this year I have sold over 4,000 photographs that these have captured, that is over £30k of sales from a camera I doubt anyone would buy now but it still works and we sell prints up to 16"x 12" and have never had a complaint.

I have a couple of 1d's and a 1ds for jobs that require bigger files.

My mentor from my teenage years is now in his late 80's, up until his health prevented him from continuing taking photos just 5 years ago, he still used a couple of 1950's Rolleiflex's and was still better than I will ever be!

Enjoy the photography, the camera and other accesories are just tools of the trade.

[Tony_Gamble]

I am a semi-pro. I'm not going to tell you which cameras I use.

My wife and I recently hosted a wedding anniversary party. So I could look after our guests, and also enjoy the party, I employed a young professsional photographer who I trusted.

He has put about three hundred shots on his web site and it contains a lot of fun images that really capture the spirit of the evening. We've looked through that web site several times and are so pleased that we asked him to do the job.

I've also got copies of his jpgs on my studio computer. I went through those files the other day as I want to print up an album. On the big screen in my studio it is quite obvious that some of our favourite (web) images are far from sharp.

Should I not put them in the album because they are not pin sharp? Do I reject them as they are not technically perfect? Never!

They go into our book because of the story they tell. The story is what matters and not the perfection of the image.

Ian mentioned Olympus in the previous message. Not the obvious brand choice of the press brigade. But there is a fascinating thread lurking from the Galbraith days about a war zone photographer who swore by Olympus and almost tempted me to sell my ********* - no I am not going to tell you what I use for work.

Rgds

Tony