Why We Switched to Nikon

[Vtec44]

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.

Welcome to the forum, Tony. Aren't you on OT.com too?

 

[tecboy]

So... Tony, welcome! Are you going to switch back to canon anytime soon, since canon has 50 mp cameras?

 

[Braineack]

They still have dr no better than the 5dmiii, one of the main reasons for their switch. Mp won't help.

using tapatalk.

 

[TonyHoffer]

I thought the gear list that he and his wife picked out was interesting. He wrote that they bought, "3 d750s, a 24 3.5 tilt shift, 24-70, 2 Sigma 35s, 45 tilt shift, 2 Sigma 50s, 60 macro, 85 1.4, 85 1.8, 2 105 f/2s, 70-200." Plus, they have the Cheetah flash system units. All in all, pretty solid setup with a lot of emphasis on higher-end glass in the focal lengths most people would want for events. Pretty nice array of lenses to use on the D750, or any other FX Nikon for that matter.

They certainly didn't scrimp on the equipment.

The tilt shifts are a bit unexpected. I assume for special effect and location shots. Seem like a pricy route for only a few shots.

Hey guys,
Yeah we have a ton of acquired Canon equipment over the years so we (for the most part) replaced it lens for lens with Nikon. The truth is that with as much as we shoot and with 2 of us (my wife and I) shooting, we like to have everything covered at least 3 times over. We've dropped way too many lenses over the years to not have backups.

Regarding the tilt-shifts. We use the 45 more for artistic affect. The 24 is used for architecture and landscape stuff. We shoot a decent amount of commercial work that requires shifting. We had the Canon 17 ts-e but the Nikon 24 is the closest we could come.

The tilt shifts are a bit unexpected. I assume for special effect and location shots. Seem like a pricy route for only a few shots.

I've been noting a trend in wedding photographers using them--they make interesting photos:

http://gleasonphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nebraskas-best-wedding-photographer_0025.jpg

Funny, we know Dustin relatively well (he came to our workshop last year). Great guy and he's also made the switch. He uses tilt-shifts a lot.

I still don't understand why these couples switched to Nikon.

I looked into their website a bit last week when this thread was in full swing: they offer three shooting teams, and the masthead photo shows five people in the group photo. Prices for the lead team of hubby and his wife are like $4,500 and up, second tier teams are,as I recall from last week, priced at $4,000 and $3,500 and up. Not sure how they run the business, if the second and third teams shoot studio-owned equipment or a mix of their own and studio gear or what.

Our two associate photographers are 1099'd so they have all their own gear. Amy and I are the ones that made the switch. And yes, the pricing you quoted is close. We average a decent amount more per wedding, but those are starting prices.

 

[TonyHoffer]

Welcome to the forum, Tony. Aren't you on OT.com too?

I don't think I've heard of that one... Too many forums, not enough time in the day... haha

So... Tony, welcome! Are you going to switch back to canon anytime soon, since canon has 50 mp cameras?

Don't think so. I thought about picking up a 5D3s for commercial work, but once we switched, that went out the window.



Thanks for the questions everybody! We're about to finish off our WPPI trip, so I gotta go. I'll try to jump back on soon to see if there's any other replies. Peace!

 

[W.Y.Photo]

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.

Its nice to see that you've taken the time to come explain this article and take a look at our forums. As you must know people can get very critical at times (especially when they don't expect the writer of an article to show up in the conversation) and I believe you are right to defend yourself. I hope it doesn't put you off of our boards.

I think that what many people may have missed is that blog posts and articles like yours are a form of marketing and they help your business. You are both able to inform those of us who are interested in photography and show your potential clients that you know what you are doing.

An article like this can seem like an advertisement because of the enthusiasm about the product being used, people can be skeptical but noone should hold that enthusiastic attitude against you.

 

[Life]

@ TonyHoffer

I found the article very interesting and quite like it too. Congrats on the switch One point I disagree with though, I think the Nikons are prettier than the Canons

 

[TonyHoffer]

@ TonyHoffer

I found the article very interesting and quite like it too. Congrats on the switch One point I disagree with though, I think the Nikons are prettier than the Canons

You probably like redheads too. Can't win em all

 

[cgw]

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.

And yet you're here...giving self-promoting testimonials and pretending it matters what people on a forum think? Right.

 

[Life]

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.

And yet you're here...giving self-promoting testimonials and pretending it matters what people on a forum think? Right.

What? Wait what? CGW you've got to be the most, nevermind, it's pointless.

 

[TonyHoffer]

And yet you're here...giving self-promoting testimonials and pretending it matters what people on a forum think? Right.

Actually, you're right. If this is the attitude of posters of this forum when fellow photographers come in, then I probably don't belong here.

Thanks again to those who read the review. It was fun while it lasted. Hopefully we'll see you all around someday!

 

[Vtec44]

And yet you're here...giving self-promoting testimonials and pretending it matters what people on a forum think? Right.

I don't say this often, but you're an idiot.

Why would an established wedding photographer promoting his photography services to a forum full of other photographers? If this is where brides hang out, then all bets are off. @TonyHoffer 's business is largely based on his reputation and integrity. It could easily ruin his business if he lied about not being sponsored. The wedding photography industry is a small one. People will know.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

And yet you're here...giving self-promoting testimonials and pretending it matters what people on a forum think? Right.

I don't say this often, but you're an idiot.

Why would an established wedding photographer promoting his photography services to a forum full of other photographers? If this is where brides hang out, then all bets are off. @TonyHoffer 's business is largely based on his reputation and integrity. It could easily ruin his business if he lied about not being sponsored. The wedding photography industry is a small one. People will know.

...and his posts were far from promotional. More like explanatory.

This is the issue with the internet. One person can come in and ruin a potentially great and productive conversation with a few unthoughtful sentences.

 

[pixmedic]

Obviously they are a winning team. ...they switched to Nikon!

 

[JTPhotography]

Going back to the original article, check out how she is holding the camera in that very first pic when shooting the pregnant girl in the blue dress.