Why We Switched to Nikon

[gsgary]

some people can afford to jump on every new "best" bandwagon.

They call them Muppets

If i could afford a Leica S2 I would have one.

I wouldn't, I would have an MP

the MP is too plain and boring looking....
i like the M2-R better.

Thats just an M2 with easier M4 loading, what about an M4P 70 year anniversary

It's nicer, but it's just a cheaper MR-2

No it's not, it has different frame lines can take a motorwind

 

[pixmedic]

They call them Muppets

If i could afford a Leica S2 I would have one.

I wouldn't, I would have an MP

the MP is too plain and boring looking....
i like the M2-R better.

Thats just an M2 with easier M4 loading, what about an M4P 70 year anniversary

It's nicer, but it's just a cheaper MR-2

No it's not, it has different frame lines can take a motorwind

Eh..
I still like the MR-2 better.
That thing is styles upon styles

 

[gsgary]

There is only 2500 like mine

 

[pixmedic]

There is only 2500 like mine

you don't have to defend your precious.
we all know how much you adore your Leica mp4 70 year anniversary rangefinder.
I get it. its a nice little camera. its very cute.
It wouldn't matter to me if they only made 50 of them.
I still like the MR-2 better.

It seems pretty much impossible to make any sort of statement about film photography without you bringing it up.
i mean, here I am, with my blatantly obvious aversion to shooting film....trying so very hard to find some common ground with you by mentioning a Leica I would really love to have, but I guess its not good enough because the S2 is digital...(Bad-Ass Digital too) so fine. I make a second attempt at bridging our camera preference gap by mentioning a film camera i really like, that also happens to be a Leica....And still all you can talk about is your MP4.

Maybe we should try alcohol.
or is my 20 year Balvenie single malt not up to your standards?
I also have a '94 Chateau Lafitte Rothschild if you prefer wine....
im not much of a beer drinker, but I do sometimes stock some Angry Orchard Cider...I could run out and grab some cold ones.

 

[waday]

the S2 is digital...(Bad-Ass Digital too)

So, I go and look at this camera. Doth my eye deceive me?

This camera is listed as having an affordable price at a mere $25,999.99 on Amazon?

 

[Life]

I'll take a real nice Sony over a Leica any day

 

[pixmedic]

the S2 is digital...(Bad-Ass Digital too)

So, I go and look at this camera. Doth my eye deceive me?

This camera is listed as having an affordable price at a mere $25,999.99 on Amazon?

View attachment 96429

its all relative to how much you have.
Porsche's are affordable.... compared to Bugatti's.

you could go cheaper with phase one, or more expensive with
Mamiya Leaf Credo 80MP Digital Back 4 Hasselblad V 503CW 501cm 905SWC SWC M eBay

 

[waday]

the S2 is digital...(Bad-Ass Digital too)

So, I go and look at this camera. Doth my eye deceive me?

This camera is listed as having an affordable price at a mere $25,999.99 on Amazon?

View attachment 96429

its all relative to how much you have.
Porsche's are affordable.... compared to Bugatti's.

Understood. For me, it's more like a used car is affordable compared to a Leica S2

 

[Braineack]

This camera is listed as having an affordable price at a mere $25,999.99 on Amazon?

maybe you also missed the part about interchangable lenses!!!

 

[gsgary]

There is only 2500 like mine

you don't have to defend your precious.
we all know how much you adore your Leica mp4 70 year anniversary rangefinder.
I get it. its a nice little camera. its very cute.
It wouldn't matter to me if they only made 50 of them.
I still like the MR-2 better.

It seems pretty much impossible to make any sort of statement about film photography without you bringing it up.
i mean, here I am, with my blatantly obvious aversion to shooting film....trying so very hard to find some common ground with you by mentioning a Leica I would really love to have, but I guess its not good enough because the S2 is digital...(Bad-Ass Digital too) so fine. I make a second attempt at bridging our camera preference gap by mentioning a film camera i really like, that also happens to be a Leica....And still all you can talk about is your MP4.

Maybe we should try alcohol.
or is my 20 year Balvenie single malt not up to your standards?
I also have a '94 Chateau Lafitte Rothschild if you prefer wine....
im not much of a beer drinker, but I do sometimes stock some Angry Orchard Cider...I could run out and grab some cold ones.

What about Leica M Monochrom I would have one of those, don't get so uptight I'm only playing with you[emoji3]

 

[W.Y.Photo]

the S2 is digital...(Bad-Ass Digital too)

So, I go and look at this camera. Doth my eye deceive me?

This camera is listed as having an affordable price at a mere $25,999.99 on Amazon?

View attachment 96429

Suddenly a D810 doesn't seem so expensive, right?

 

[tecboy]

They will probably change their mind and go with Sony mirrorless Dslr.

 

[Braineack]

They will probably change their mind and go with Sony mirrorless Dslr.

doubt it.

else they could have bought an adapter and ran all their current lenses, right?

 

[TonyHoffer]

Hey all! Thanks to those of you who checked out the review... I just saw this link in our analytics (I've never been here before) and thought I'd hop on over... Over the next few posts I'll try to quickly respond to some of the questions or thoughts presented throughout the thread...

 

[TonyHoffer]

Not disagreeing with you posting this Braineack, but this could be an add done by Nikon fanboys who were somewhat familiar with Canon gear.

Hey jaomul, Rest assured, we're not sponsored by either Nikon or Canon. We've spent the past 8 years happily shooting Canon. It was a huge decision for us to change (as I wrote in the article) and the d750 isn't perfect. It was the right decision for us at the time though, but for the images and financially.

I did read it. I do shoot Nikon. I would a lot of what they say is spot on. But it reads like a promo, throwing in a small "Canon is better here" for stuff that's probably not overly important.

They talk about underexoposing to save highlights and they are wedding shooters, but how much are they underexposing by, a stop or 4 stops. Any raw file can be pushed a stop or so if shot correctly at lowish iso. Anything more required is bad practice, understandable in landscape.

As I said, not disagreeing with it being put up, but it's a popcorn read

We wrote this to be a real-world article about what was important to us. It was written and posted because we had tons of photographers asking about the switch. Sorry that it wasn't helpful for you, but with all due respect, it wasn't written as a pixel-peeeper type review. It was just our thoughts.

Regarding underexposure, we tend to push our shadows a lot. With Canon, if an image was underexposed by a stop and then needed shadows pushed, there would be lots of shadow noise, even at low ISO. That's where it comes in handy for us.

I only wish I could read it...
View attachment 96128

Sorry about that. It's a Chrome issue we've been dealing with.

Couple points.

1. Sure comparing a camera that came out this year to one that came out several years ago will yield better results. Not saying that the DR isn't better in Nikon, just saying it's not an accurate comparison.

2. Nikon is leading the pack now, but it's always been a game of leap frog. Right now Nikon has come out with a bunch of new high-end cameras so odds are they will "go dark" for a bit. In the meantime Canon will release their latest and greatest.

3. DR is certainly the buzz word these days isn't it? Heck most people didn't even know what it was until marketers made it a buzzword.

4. DR is important until it isn't. What I mean is that there is a ton of photographers who really aren't concerned as they don't shoot in an environment where having a ton of DR is needed.

So yeah, I am defending Canon a bit, but really I am more trying to get folks to breathe a bit and realize it's not about gear as much as having fun.

runnah, Thanks for the thoughts. I totally agree with you on almost all points here. I addressed most of them in the article. Maybe DR is more important to us than to you and that's ok. As I said in the conclusion, I don't think Nikon (or the d750 specifically) is right for everyone. It just was for us.

The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually working to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.

cgw, You seem like a fun person :/

I hate to do this on my first posts on this forum, but this is an incredibly rude thing to say. I've been a full time photographer for 7 years now. My wife is too. We earn our living doing only photography and work our butts off every day of the year to do it. We've shot 40 weddings/year for the last 8 years. We shoot nearly 170 days per year with our wedding, portrait and commercial work. We have a full time studio manager, a full time associate photographer and another part time associate photographer. We shoot more than 99% of photographers I know and make a pretty good living doing it. Guess what? We ARE the few full-time wedding shooters.

Embarrass myself? Wow.