# Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 20, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/why-scott-kelby-switched-to-canon/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/why-scott-kelby-switched-to-canon/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Long time Nikon shooter, author and Adobe professional Scott Kelby switched over to Canon about 6 months. Being that he’s a popular guy in the photography world, I assume he was being asked every 10 minutes why he switched.</p>
<p>The switch was made to a EOS-1D X and EOS 5D Mark III for the big reasons of ergonomics, menu system and skin tones.</p>
<p>Kelby sits down with Canon Explorer of Light Rick Sammon to discuss the switch to Canon.</p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Vz94bdlVVlc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take</strong>

I’m not sure how much Mr Kelby paid for the Canon gear he now has, but I hypothesize it was at a discount. :)</p>
<p>System switching is an odd thing to me, and always has been. Unless there’s a definitive feature or lens that one doesn’t have and the other does.</p>
<p>I have heard of Canon shooters moving to Nikon if they use Speedlites a lot, as Nikon’s ETTL does a better and more consistent job than Canon’s system does.  When I hear a Nikon user switching to Canon, it seems to usually be about video features. I also know of a couple of nature photographers that moved over to Canon around the time the new big white lenses made it to market. They found great value in the weight savings of Canon’s new super telephoto lenses.</p>
<p>Switching for ergonomics is a weird one to me. After a few months with a camera, you’re used to it and it becomes second nature. I personally fumble around with Nikon’s pro bodies, but that’s because I have been shooting Canon predominantly for a long time. Had I always shot Nikon, I’m sure the opposite would be true.</p>
<p>Spotted on: [<a href="http://www.photographybay.com/2014/01/20/scott-kelby-explains-his-switch-from-nikon-to-canon/" target="_blank">PB</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 20, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> The switch was made to a EOS-1D X and EOS 5D Mark III for the big reasons of ergonomics, menu system and skin tones.



Now, that should generate a couple of troll posts on nikon rumors :-> 

Btw I agree about the the ergonomics, when I had to decide between 60d and d7000 back then I felt much more comfortable with the Canon system, though not surprising I've been using Canon film for decades. Of course the menu system Kelby likes is only on the new 5d3/1dx, the rest of us still uses the one-dimensional unrolled menu system like on the 6d/70d.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 20, 2014)

My understanding is that it had much more to do with AF and the MkII super teles when he is shooting the NFL, but more diplomatic reasons are sited.

He is shooting alongside NFL pro shooters and they were using Canon, his AF hit rate was dramatically lower.


----------



## noncho (Jan 20, 2014)

Ergonomics... (and a few thousand dollars for direct advertising from Canon 8) )


----------



## Ricku (Jan 20, 2014)

Been thinking about switching to Nikon many times, because of "their" (Sony's) superior sensor tech, but haven't because I'd lose a boatload of money in doing that. :'(

And yeah, then there's the ergonomics..


----------



## Woody (Jan 20, 2014)

This is shocking because Scott Kelby has always been a very strong proponent of the Nikon system. Now, why will someone who has touted the wide dynamic range in Nikon cameras suddenly switch to a system with inferior sensors? ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Murilo_mms (Jan 20, 2014)

I moved from Nikon D4 to 5DMKIII because of skin tones and couldn´t be more happy. Another reason was I am amateur and was concerned about money invested on a body.


----------



## bobcatou (Jan 20, 2014)

I use to argue with a friend of mine about the old Nikon/Canon debate. Luckily I didn't get one but with the way Nikon handled the D600 oil/just issue, I decided it wasn't worth risking my money on them anymore since I was going into full frame and more expensive gear. 

After I got my Canon 6d, I grew to love it. Especially the lowlight capability. I feel I am in much better hands with Canon now.


----------



## m (Jan 20, 2014)

I wonder when Canon approached them. It sounds like not too long ago.
Did Canon really just recently thought "hey, a lot of people watch their stuff, maybe we should make our gear show up there"?


----------



## someonewhoknows (Jan 20, 2014)

OK, let's really discuss this. Canon wants Scott's social media reach. They offered him(the contract reads his company but remember he owns it) a mid 6 figure sum to "sponsor " him. That of course includes a ton of "permanent" loaners(nikon and canon give away very little so you don't sell it but it is loaned forever) but camera gear in the grand scheme of things isn't that much to companies the size of Canon, Nikon or Kelby publishing(in 2007 it was a $20 million a year company, imagine how big it is today http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/products/2007-05-08-kelby-photoshop_N.htm).
Canon and Nikon have been dumping sponsored working pros and replacing them with big social media guys because the average amateur is an internet geek and get their info from non pros like Rick and Scott. Times are changing and he who yells the loudest wins. Kelby isn't a pro and has found a small stock agency to be sponsored by because he gets them a ton of publicity, not because the photos are good(imaging him turning those pictures into SI?) That said he is a GREAT teacher. Absolutely amazing teacher so it makes total sense Canon will pay for that placement. Nikon is a much smaller company and couldn't match that deal. I expect Canon and and on a smaller scale Nikon to be doing more of this in the near future. Fans of both sides want it to be about the cameras but it's not, it's about business.
So let's cut the ergonomics talk and call it what it was, a great business deal for him, his company and Canon.


----------



## tiger82 (Jan 20, 2014)

Dear Scott: 

Please send me all your Nikon gear.


----------



## Murilo_mms (Jan 20, 2014)

someonewhoknows said:


> So let's cut the ergonomics talk and call it what it was, a great business deal for him, his company and Canon.


I couldn´t agree more! It´s all about sponsorship.


----------



## dude (Jan 20, 2014)

This guy is blowing smoke just to be nice to Nikon. Just say it was because the AF and FPS rock for sports. It's ok to be honest! 

Ergonomics... Felt like it was designed by Apple...


----------



## Jamesy (Jan 20, 2014)

Scott is a great teacher - I have taken a couple of his seminars when he has come through town. My buddy Hien snapped this of Scott and I on my old 40D, 17-55/2.8 combo. I joked with him at the time about being shot with Canon as he was a staunch Nikonian at the time...

Keep Calm and CanOn...


----------



## Vivid Color (Jan 20, 2014)

Woody said:


> This is shocking because Scott Kelby has always been a very strong proponent of the Nikon system. Now, why will someone who has touted the wide dynamic range in Nikon cameras suddenly switch to a system with inferior sensors? ;D ;D ;D



As Mr. Kelby noted in the video, you pick a camera on the basis of many factors. I'll note that how you weigh those factors is dependent on use and individual preferences. Likely, Mr. Kelby's stated reasons of Canon having the better AF, better hit rate, and skin tones outweighed, in his case, the DR, the sensor, and other features in Nikon's cameras. It may simply come down to specs on paper don't matter if you don't/can't get the shot in the field or don't like the resulting tone. Although it is interesting to see people who have used one system for years move to another, given the stated reasons, I'm not sure why any of this is surprising or shocking.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 20, 2014)

Some bad blood is being spilled at nikon oriented forums ;D ... over the years I've shot with both Canon & Nikon cameras/lenses and I still shoot with both the systems ... but more with Canon ... recently got the Sony a7 ... from my limited experience, all of them do a great job ... one does better in some situations then the other, but in the end they are all fantastic (but quality control over at Nikon has been pretty crappy in the last few years e.g. SB-900 & D600).


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 20, 2014)

I'm betting this has as much to do with "trying something new" as anything. If you have many different options available with little to no barrier to using them, and you've only been using one option for a while, you're going to be curious.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jan 20, 2014)

I can see why Nikonians may feel slighted by Kelby. But I have one of his books and he doesn't give Nikon or Canon any greater emphasis over the other. I've always been a Canon shooter and didn't feel he gave preference to Nikon. 

He also promotes B&H in the book as well. So he has no problem advertising for someone. And I think that's why he switched to Canon. The 5D MKIII and 1DX have been out for several years and don't think they magically changed overnight. If he got a great sponsorship package, why not say so? Professionals in many different areas switch teams for similar reasons all the time. He's going to piss-off Nikonians regardless of his reasons.

I always recommend his books for beginners. And that group is the majority of the market.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 20, 2014)

.
Someonewhoknows says it more eloquently, but basically he switched because he's a whore.

I don't mean any disrespect to Kelby or Canon or whores, for that matter. It's just buyers and sellers. Kelby has a fine training organization, and he's one of the best pitchmen around. Canon wants what he can give, and they've got the money to make it happen.

All the talk about ergonomics, AF, etc. is just stockings, garter belts and crimson lipstick.











someonewhoknows said:


> OK, let's really discuss this. Canon wants Scott's social media reach. They offered him(the contract reads his company but remember he owns it) a mid 6 figure sum to "sponsor " him. That of course includes a ton of "permanent" loaners(nikon and canon give away very little so you don't sell it but it is loaned forever) but camera gear in the grand scheme of things isn't that much to companies the size of Canon, Nikon or Kelby publishing(in 2007 it was a $20 million a year company, imagine how big it is today http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/products/2007-05-08-kelby-photoshop_N.htm).
> Canon and Nikon have been dumping sponsored working pros and replacing them with big social media guys because the average amateur is an internet geek and get their info from non pros like Rick and Scott. Times are changing and he who yells the loudest wins. Kelby isn't a pro and has found a small stock agency to be sponsored by because he gets them a ton of publicity, not because the photos are good(imaging him turning those pictures into SI?) That said he is a GREAT teacher. Absolutely amazing teacher so it makes total sense Canon will pay for that placement. Nikon is a much smaller company and couldn't match that deal. I expect Canon and and on a smaller scale Nikon to be doing more of this in the near future. Fans of both sides want it to be about the cameras but it's not, it's about business.
> So let's cut the ergonomics talk and call it what it was, a great business deal for him, his company and Canon.


----------



## jrista (Jan 20, 2014)

> Switching for ergonomics is a weird one to me. After a few months with a camera, you’re used to it and it becomes second nature. I personally fumble around with Nikon’s pro bodies, but that’s because I have been shooting Canon predominantly for a long time. Had I always shot Nikon, I’m sure the opposite would be true.



I'm not so sure about that. While yes, you can _get used_ to any control layout, there is something about Canon's control layout (buttons and dials) that just works better. The only complaint I've had about Canon's button layout is the DOF preview button on my 7D, however that's been fixed with newer DSLR bodies (it's now in the PERFECT place.) When it comes to controlling all the critical settings without ever taking your eye from the viewfinder, Canon 's button layout trounces Nikon's. I can change just about everything without taking my eye from the viewfinder, and without moving my fingers very far from the shutter button. The mechanism by which you switch modes to change things like ISO, flash compensation, AF point selection, etc. is so simple it becomes a procedural memory thing. You can fly through settings changes while your still tracking a subject in motion, and get back to shooting in a heartbeat. That isn't just because you know the system...it's the specific layout. Canon NAILED it. Nikon...they get some things right, and some things wrong (and some VERY wrong.) 

This isn't the first time I've heard a Nikon shooter rave about Canon ergonomics. There is something about it that is indeed superior.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 20, 2014)

now i hope that puts in perspective what we have to read from amateurs here who tell us for years they gonna switch to nikon. 

NOBODY CARES IF YOU SWITCH TO SONIKON OR NOT... you are not scott kelby!!


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 20, 2014)

noncho said:


> Ergonomics... (and a few thousand dollars for direct advertising from Canon 8) )



well better he gets payed by canon then nikon...not?

if you believed him in the past that he gets no money from nikon... what changed?


----------



## unfocused (Jan 20, 2014)

One more thought. Joe McNally shoots Nikon. McNally is big part of the Kelbyone empire (possibly the best-known working professional in Kelby's stable of photographers and Photoshop experts).

I don't know if it would have influenced anything, but it certainly doesn't hurt for the top two Kelbyone photographers to be using different systems. 

I also note that a Canon logo now appears on the Kelbyone website, along with a promised member discount that doesn't seem to have been posted anywhere yet. 

I have several of Kelby's books and have learned much from his tips and tutorials. I don't imagine he would have switched, purely for money as he doesn't need it. But, I also suspect that if he found a system he preferred, he wouldn't be ignorant of any financial advantages it might present.


----------



## bdeutsch (Jan 20, 2014)

If you listen to and pay attention to Kelby, it's clear that he's a business man first, a Photoshop guy 2nd, and shooting is a distant third at best. Like many others in this forum, I find it very unlikely that the _shooter_ made the decision; it surely was the _ business man_.

Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photographer


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 20, 2014)

I remember wanting to switch to a d700+SB900 system because of the nice exposures. I'm glad I didn't .


----------



## DaveMiko (Jan 20, 2014)

... Because Canon is simply the best!!!! 8) ... Period!!!! 8)


----------



## LDS (Jan 20, 2014)

Now he can write a whole new bunch of books about Canon gear... and sell them to Canonites who will happily buy them just because he switched to Canon...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I don't imagine he would have switched, purely for money as he doesn't need it.



Sure, and professional athletes already making $20 million per year don't sign contracts with other teams to make an extra couple million, because they don't need the money, either. Right. :

Put all the crimson lipstick you want on the pig, it's still about the money.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jan 20, 2014)

someonewhoknows said:


> OK, let's really discuss this. Canon wants Scott's social media reach. They offered him(the contract reads his company but remember he owns it) a mid 6 figure sum to "sponsor " him. That of course includes a ton of "permanent" loaners(nikon and canon give away very little so you don't sell it but it is loaned forever) but camera gear in the grand scheme of things isn't that much to companies the size of Canon, Nikon or Kelby publishing(in 2007 it was a $20 million a year company, imagine how big it is today http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/products/2007-05-08-kelby-photoshop_N.htm).
> Canon and Nikon have been dumping sponsored working pros and replacing them with big social media guys because the average amateur is an internet geek and get their info from non pros like Rick and Scott. Times are changing and he who yells the loudest wins. Kelby isn't a pro and has found a small stock agency to be sponsored by because he gets them a ton of publicity, not because the photos are good(imaging him turning those pictures into SI?) That said he is a GREAT teacher. Absolutely amazing teacher so it makes total sense Canon will pay for that placement. Nikon is a much smaller company and couldn't match that deal. I expect Canon and and on a smaller scale Nikon to be doing more of this in the near future. Fans of both sides want it to be about the cameras but it's not, it's about business.
> So let's cut the ergonomics talk and call it what it was, a great business deal for him, his company and Canon.



While you might very well be right, I mean who knows... I seriously doubt that it was because Nikon could not match the offerings. Ego*s like I am sure that Scott Kelby has a lot of, tend to be very emotional characters imhe. It does not take more than a new mid-manager who takes him for granted to switch between the two systems. 

Now that Kelby has jumped in with Canon with both legs really ties him to a brand. It now becomes really hard for him to switch system without being the laughingstock.


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I don't imagine he would have switched, purely for money as he doesn't need it.
> ...


+1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 20, 2014)

He sounded somewhat believable until he started going on about the amazing high ISO performance. I mean yeah the 1DX high ISO is very good.... BUT so is the D4 that he has! The 1DX high ISO is no better at all than his D4 and the 5D3 high ISO is worse than the D4 high ISO (although the extra MP on the 5D3 helps a bit in some ways). And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.

I do like Canon's UI a lot better myself though.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 20, 2014)

Is anyone from Nikon reading this? I can be paid big bucks to switch to Nikon.... I can tell everyone how 50 plus megapixels and 24 stops of dynamic range made all the difference in the world when shooting pictures of my white cat in a snowstorm....


----------



## zlatko (Jan 20, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.



It's quite possible that Nikon's dynamic range at low ISO makes no difference to Scott Kelby. It makes no difference to me at all.


----------



## tiger82 (Jan 20, 2014)

Regardless of his reasons, does Scott Kelby really care what we think? Does it matter to any of us what he shoots?


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2014)

After using both the D4 and 1dx I can safely say no amount of money would make me switch.. Scott might be different :


----------



## jrista (Jan 20, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> He sounded somewhat believable until he started going on about the amazing high ISO performance. I mean yeah the 1DX high ISO is very good.... BUT so is the D4 that he has! The 1DX high ISO is no better at all than his D4 and the 5D3 high ISO is worse than the D4 high ISO (although the extra MP on the 5D3 helps a bit in some ways). And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.
> 
> I do like Canon's UI a lot better myself though.



Based on DXO tests (i.e. "on paper"), no, the 1D X high ISO is theoretically the same as the D4. However, from a visual standpoint, I've seen ISO 16000 images and even some ISO 51200 sports images from a 1D X that simply blow me away...similar images from the D4 just don't engender the same feeling of low noise and clean quality. The D4 also actually tops out at native ISO 12800, beyond which you can only select full stops with "expanded" modes. ISOs above 12800 on the D4 (and pretty much any other Nikon camera that supports expanded ISO above 12800) feel a bit "gritty." The 1D X offers full native third-stop ISO capability right up to ISO 51200, and its third stops are very clean. You have the option of using the cleanest ISO options above 12800 with the 1D X, where as you can only use 25600 (H1), 51200 (H2), 102400 (H3), and 204800 (H4) on the D4...that is a factor that cannot be overlooked, as you can always use say ISO 16000 or ISO 20000 instead of 25600 when you need more than 12800, and get lower noise results. (Same goes for ISO 3200 and 40000.) 

From what I can tell, the D4 suffers a little higher chroma noise (which isn't surprising, since its expanded ISOs are a digital push of ISO 12800...read noise is getting amplified). The 1D X has lower chroma noise up through ISO 51200 (particularly in the blacks...chroma noise in the lower tones on the 1D X is very good, but it is quite visible on the D4. See here for an example: http://www.cameraegg.org/canon-eos-1d-x-vs-nikon-d4-high-iso-test/). Luma noise is easy to clean up, where as cleaning excessive color noise can leave a bit of blotchiness behind. I've seen a number of bird photos from ISO 16000 and on taken with the 1D X, including a few ISO 51200 shots (couple shots of some geese...they were amazing, if I can find the link). The results have always been astonishing, very clean, crisp, good color fidelity.

Here are some more examples of the 1D X edge at high ISO:

http://thenewcamera.com/canon-1dx-vs-nikon-d4-high-iso-war/


Artificial tests don't tell you everything. On paper, the two cameras might as well be identical. In practice, chroma noise at higher ISO settings on the D4 start eating away at detail in the shadows, where as chroma noise is quite low in the shadows with the 1D X. As a result, high ISO photos taken with the 1D X are remarkably clean and usable. An excellent example would be the NY Manhatten Island photo taken with a 1D X at ISO 25600 at night during Hurricane Sandy:






(See large version for best example of the noise quality here: http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/magsandy.jpg)

I'm still waiting to see a comparable photo like this taken with a D4. I just don't think it would have performed as well...not with it's chroma noise.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 20, 2014)

Does he have to *switch*? If I had the space and the money (I suspect neither is a problem for him, though of course I don't know for sure), I would keep both. Aside from such practical considerations, I don't find brand loyalty terribly appealing. That said, I too think Canon's ergonomics are far better than Nikon's....


----------



## stevejwphoto (Jan 20, 2014)

about 6 months... _ago_?


----------



## RGF (Jan 20, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> He sounded somewhat believable until he started going on about the amazing high ISO performance. I mean yeah the 1DX high ISO is very good.... BUT so is the D4 that he has! The 1DX high ISO is no better at all than his D4 and the 5D3 high ISO is worse than the D4 high ISO (although the extra MP on the 5D3 helps a bit in some ways). And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.
> 
> I do like Canon's UI a lot better myself though.



The key issue I beat is the size of the dangle. Working with Canon, he will get lots of stuff, either free or on loan


----------



## OmarSV11 (Jan 21, 2014)

Nikon ergnomics is a piece of crap... The AE-L/AF-L button is pushed right beside the viewfinder and some of my students find it really hard to use, as we teach them about back focusing button.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 21, 2014)

ewg963 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



After he said about four times in the first two minutes of the video "Canon said you don't have to switch", and then "they were really really like, almost hyper, you don't have to switch".

Why does everyone think that he switched for money? He clearly stated that they were already sponsoring his tours and didn't need him to switch. As noted it looks like he just doesn't care what he uses that much, which makes it more likely he's just a kid in a candy store, what's the big deal?
Basically he would by lying if he actually got more money to switch.

Do you guys think he's being a politician and just leaving out the "but we'll pay you twice as much if you do switch" part?


----------



## DanielW (Jan 21, 2014)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.
> ...



+1


----------



## DanielW (Jan 21, 2014)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.
> ...



Wow, terrific photos on your website!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 21, 2014)

In my town, Canon is the choice of most serious photographers who have some lenses beyond the kit zoom. The vast majority of wedding photographers use 7D, 60D, and some use 5Dmark ii, 6D. On the other hand, among novice photographers (and those who only have the kit lens) the proportion is half and half Canon Nikon. There are some things I will never understand about the Nikon users: 

A large part of the professionals do not know where to get the menu settings on your Nikon, and never discover what are some buttons, like the double disc on top of the D7000. : 

I find it funny when they (Nikonians) ask me something about their camera because never managed to decipher the instruction manual. 

I never understood why users D3100 (and similar) always buy the top of the line flash, SB 900, SB910, pretending that, SB600, SB700 are good for nothing. Those who do not buy SB910, extensively use the built-in camera flash. :-X 

I'm amazed when I see many experienced photographers lost in the Nikon flash menu. WTF!  

It also causes me laugh to see the Nikon users photograph with lens hood reverse mounted. Why not take off the lens hood? ;D 

For some mysterious reason, women of my city prefer Nikon cameras. Does the ergonomics of D3100 was designed to fit perfectly in female hands? :-*

Ever wonder why many Nikonians use UV filter on your lens 18-55mm. To protect your investment in this lens? :-\

Never seen any D3, D4 in use. It seems that photojournalists do not like the Nikon options. Maybe because the Nikon authorized service takes up to 6 months to make repairs? :'(


----------



## bluntforcetrauma (Jan 21, 2014)

It's all about the Benjamin's.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't think Canon pays me nearly enough to extol on the virtues of the 1DX at high ISO! The files I've shot at 6400 are unbelievably clean, and I'm amazed that what was shot at 25,600 is usable in real-world applications. 

If I was a skeptic before, after I saw with my one eyes what the 1DX sensor can do, I'm not at all surprised that the top pros make the switch.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 21, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> Scott is a great teacher - I have taken a couple of his seminars when he has come through town. My buddy Hien snapped this of Scott and I on my old 40D, 17-55/2.8 combo. I joked with him at the time about being shot with Canon as he was a staunch Nikonian at the time...
> 
> Keep Calm and CanOn...



The 40D was about my favorite body ever. Still need to get another one someday and relive the love. I bought, used and sold 4 40D bodies to friends before I finally replaced it with the 60D. Too bad the flash in this shot didn't have a Sto-Fen on it.


----------



## someonewhoknows (Jan 21, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> Someonewhoknows says it more eloquently, but basically he switched because he's a whore.



Think that may be a touch harsh. He's a media person who employs +/- 50 full time people and has a lot riding on his success. Thats a lot of healthcare, paid vacations, 401k's, salary, etc etc to worry about each month. Someone comes along with a sponsorship, you would listen too. And I promise they didn't sign Scott, they are sponsoring all his classes, videos, workshops, etc. He doesn't "have" to change but to be honest, yes he does. Race car driviers don't have to drive the car they race for on their day off but they do. Bruno Mars can drink whatever soda he wants but I promise you won't see him in public with a coke cola. Thats the way the game is played. He's not an artist. It's no different that a working photographer taking a job to shoot for a healthcare or sports company. They pay you and tell you what they want/expect. Same deal here. Whore is an easy word to throw around anomously on the internet but expecting something for pay is hardly whoring ones self.
FWIW Since Scott has changed has his work really improved? He still does the same long lens shot of someone holding up their helmet and a 600mm closeup of someones face just like every other amatuer would if they got to go on the sidelines. Don't think a D4 or a 1dx really matters.


----------



## duydaniel (Jan 21, 2014)

Honestly, choose whatever.
If you use a product just because you saw someone else is using it.
Then you are living the life of that person. Virtually there is nothing Canon can do and Nikon cannot or vice versa. There maybe slight differences here and there but live your own life and enjoy it


----------



## SPL (Jan 21, 2014)

someonewhoknows said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


+1
They are all tools,...cameras, paints,..the stove used by the world renowned chef


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 21, 2014)

In the youtube comments another switching event is pointed out.

http://tamaralackeyblog.com/switch-from-canon-to-nikon/


Honestly at this point I have doubts that anyone has ever switched systems for completely logical reasons.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 21, 2014)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.
> ...



Yes that is certainly quite possible, but what is suspect is that he makes a big deal about a high iso improvement compared to his D4 which doesn't actually exist while ignoring a low ISO improvement that is there. Not suspect would have been to mention that the loss of low ISO DR alone or to have mentioned nothing about the sensors whatsoever (high iso is the same for D4 and 1DX pretty much and if he doesn't care about the low ISO DR he doesn't care).

It's certainly quite possibly he did end up liking the 1DX better than his D4 no doubt at all (although whether he would have put out tens of thousands of his own to add a top sports level Canon setup to his arsenal is less certain), but with all the sponsorship you can be sure it will be tougher for him to bring up any negative points about Canon (as the high ISO/low ISO thing hints at), it's just natural for it to be a bit tougher when people are being nice and giving you this and that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 21, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> Regardless of his reasons, does Scott Kelby really care what we think? Does it matter to any of us what he shoots?



only if it backfires and they decide it's not worth it to sponsor him hah

probably not hah


----------



## jrista (Jan 21, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



*The high ISO difference doesn't exist on paper, or in artificial tests.*

Read my previous response to you...I provided some links with visual evidence that there IS a difference between the D4 and 1D X at high ISO, giving a clear edge to the 1D X. The key is that the 1D X has less apparent color noise, especially in the shadows...by quite a visible margin. The D4 at anything over 12800 is doing a digital boost, so it's lifting read noise along with everything else, so more color noise is expected. The 1D X, on the other hand, is doing amplification at the pixel before readout up to ISO 51200, so only ISO 102400 and 204800 are doing a digital boost and lifting read noise. This real-world difference has a meaningful impact on real and perceived IQ at very high ISO settings.

Artificial tests and paper specs don't tell you everything.


----------



## MovingViolations (Jan 21, 2014)

And just maybe he has a little advanced notice of what is coming down the road in a private meeting. Who knows? Maybe 45+ to 75 MP are not just a rumor.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jan 21, 2014)

MovingViolations said:


> And just maybe he has a little advanced notice of what is coming down the road in a private meeting. Who knows? Maybe 45+ to 75 MP are not just a rumor.




This is very optimistic, but could be very much true following Kelby's move. If Canon does have plans producing a new sensor with more DR and megapixels, they'll benefit more from testers that stayed with Nikon due to those features.


----------



## MovingViolations (Jan 21, 2014)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> MovingViolations said:
> 
> 
> > And just maybe he has a little advanced notice of what is coming down the road in a private meeting. Who knows? Maybe 45+ to 75 MP are not just a rumor.
> ...


I was told by a Canon dealer that there was a 75MP body under field test. It was eating batteries like a kid M&M's. Is that true. I have no clue. I'd like to believe it. What's a few extra batteries for the best IQ in the land? If indeed it turns out true there will be some restless nights in the land of medium format 80MP bodies and backs that sold for 40k+ with very limited lens coverage.


----------



## David Hull (Jan 21, 2014)

Woody said:


> This is shocking because Scott Kelby has always been a very strong proponent of the Nikon system. Now, why will someone who has touted the wide dynamic range in Nikon cameras suddenly switch to a system with inferior sensors? ;D ;D ;D


He probably figured out as millions have, that whatever deficiencies the Canon sensor implementation may present, they just don't make much difference for the shots he is trying to get.


----------



## David Hull (Jan 21, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> He sounded somewhat believable until he started going on about the amazing high ISO performance. I mean yeah the 1DX high ISO is very good.... BUT so is the D4 that he has! The 1DX high ISO is no better at all than his D4 and the 5D3 high ISO is worse than the D4 high ISO (although the extra MP on the 5D3 helps a bit in some ways). And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.
> 
> I do like Canon's UI a lot better myself though.


For what he does, the Low ISO DR difference might not be much of an issue. He is a sports guy mostly, I think.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jan 21, 2014)

With regard to choosing one camera over the other because of ergonomics I will say this, I shoot Canon and my wife shoots Nikon. She has the D7000 and D7100. I had the chance to purchase a D7000 and make the switch a little while ago and one of the reasons why I didn't was because I really don't care for the way these particular cameras felt in my hands. I love the way my Canon bodies feel.

As far as image quality goes Nikons are fantastic. My decision had nothing to do with that. In fact I think Canon can learn a thing or two from some of the features found in Nikon bodies. 

I can understand if Scott changed because of ergonomics.... made sense to me.

D


----------



## elkatro (Jan 21, 2014)

Don't forget that Zack Arias also switched to Canon from Nikon back in 2011
zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/headline-i-switched-to-canon-world-still-turns/

But at the end he moved to medium format,
http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/why-i-moved-to-medium-format-phase-one-iq140-review/


----------



## jrista (Jan 21, 2014)

MovingViolations said:


> Chosenbydestiny said:
> 
> 
> > MovingViolations said:
> ...



I don't see why a 75mp sensor would "eat batteries". The power required to read out the sensor is minimal, a fraction of what is required to drive the lens, and still quite a bit less than what is required to move the mirror and actuate the shutter. There is more data to transfer, but assuming Canon has updated DIGIC accordingly, it should be able to process faster at lower power than DIGIC 5+, so I still don't think the increase in megapixel count is going to result in such a massive increase in power usage as to "eat batteries". 

If Canon has made some significant strides in IQ, a 75mp FF could be rather compelling for studio shooters and other MFD users who don't want to spend tens of thousands on a true medium format system. An 80mp 60mmx40mm sensor, however, is going to have much larger pixels than a 75mp FF. Even though there is no indication that MFD sensors are getting technologically better, the larger pixel area is still going to be it's most significant advantage, resulting in higher SNR and lower noise. That will always be true, regardless of megapixel count, assuming parity between the two formats. A 100mp FF will always have worse SNR/noise than a 100mp MFD, a 250mp FF will always have worse SNR/noise than a 250mp MFD, etc. 

The DSLR's strength, at least in competition with MFD, will never be the sensor. MFD will always have the better sensor. Even when pixel sizes are the same, MFD will have so many more of them that it is still going to do better overall, despite the fact that DSLR may have a potential lead in photographic DR (that will close the gap, but it will probably never be enough to overcome the sheer megapixel lead that MFD will always be able to offer.) The DSLR's strength is in all the OTHER features. The same OTHER features that make Canon's 1D X and 5D III better cameras than Nikon counterparts: AF unit, frame rate, ergonomics.

MFD cameras are studio parts. They excel at lower ISO and slower speeds. DSLR's trounce MFD when it comes to high ISO, high speed action photography, AF tracking and realtime metering/subject identification, and frame rate. These are the things that a majority of photographers need and use, which is why DSLR manufacturers have capitalized on their continual improvement. It's also these things that anyone would switch. Nikon users don't jump the D800 ship because Canon has better sensors...they jump ship because they want the 5D III AF system and Canon lenses. They ditch the D4 and move to the 1D X because the AF system, frame rate, and high ISO IQ are faster, more consistent, and better, despite the fact that the D4 has the edge at low ISO.


----------



## AUGS (Jan 21, 2014)

jrista said:


> MovingViolations said:
> 
> 
> > Chosenbydestiny said:
> ...


Not sure if it was directly related to the 75Mpix reference above by MovingViolations, but this did appear back in September 2013 regarding the High Megapixel camera: 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17139.msg317072#msg317072
It was eating batteries in 4K video mode. Maybe there is an element of truth to all the rumours.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jan 21, 2014)

Among all the books I have about photography are two of Scott Kelby.
They are quite amusing and helpful.
Never knew he is/was using Nikon. 
So he is switching.
If the quality of his books dont suffer I dont care.


----------



## WillThompson (Jan 21, 2014)

Just another internet camera Hoe!


----------



## KacperP (Jan 21, 2014)

I also bought Kelby books. Terrible waste of money and paper, that haunts and pains me for a few years already, every time I see trees :'(
Personally I'll try to keep out of my mind that switch.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jan 21, 2014)

KacperP said:


> I also bought Kelby books. Terrible waste of money and paper, that haunts and pains me for a few years already, every time I see trees :'(
> Personally I'll try to keep out of my mind that switch.



On my part I love his books. Imho, they are well written, humorous, and I have learned lot's from him. I actually got a book by him this very Christmas. I have a few camera books, but the one I got now was the first that showed how he worked in studio (detailed instructions). And this is where many books stops.. And then he showed step by step how he PP the files. (you can even download his pictures to walk with him step by step. 

People in this forum have different levels and skills, but for me this book was perfect. I could really not care any less if he shoots for Canon or Nikon or whoever


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 21, 2014)

Why does this "switching" by whoever to Canon gear matter at all? Well, except to maybe make all those wannabee "pros" feel more warm and fuzzy about their Canon purchases.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 21, 2014)

There can be infinite reasons to switch system, and all of them can look either fundamental or childish.

However, the reasons for making an official statement about it, including the white-haired Sideshow Bob, are relatively few, and most of them involve those nice little green sheets with faces of long-dead people in the middle.


----------



## Rick (Jan 21, 2014)

Was Kelby speaking at 14 wps to match his new 1D X 14 fps? By comparison, it felt like Sammons was speaking at 3 wpm.

Kelby mentioned skin tones. Curious that the leader of Photoshop training can't fix skin tone quickly and easily in the software (though he can turn your skin polka-dotted in PS if he wants to). I would've have figured he had an action written specifically for that. Plenty of Nikon devotees claim skin tone is a simple matter in the software Kelby is supposed to be an uber-trainer for. Maybe Kelby should spend some time on the DPR Nikon forum. 

I shoot both brands (camera and lenses) usually using both at the same location and neither reproduces color 100% accurately.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Why does this "switching" by whoever to Canon gear matter at all? Well, except to maybe make all those wannabee "pros" feel more warm and fuzzy about their Canon purchases.


I know it is fashionable to make certain comments on the internet, that kinda look like they are "different" from others, but not everything, in life, has to be viewed with cynicism. I am a subscriber to Kelbyone and I like to know what camera gear Kelby uses, it gives us an opportunity to understand why or how professionals make their decisions ... same as me (or others) wanting to know what camera gear other CR members use - in Scott Kelby's case, he is a lot more famous than us, so the level of interest is obviously more. It does not mean people are "wannabee pros" wanting to "feel more warm and fuzzy about theri Canon purchases".


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

Rick said:


> Kelby mentioned skin tones. Curious that the leader of Photoshop training can't fix skin tone quickly and easily in the software (though he can turn your skin polka-dotted in PS if he wants to). I would've have figured he had an action written specifically for that. Plenty of Nikon devotees claim skin tone is a simple matter in the software Kelby is supposed to be an uber-trainer for.


All he said was that he liked the skin tones of Canon cameras, nowhere in that video did he say that he cannot fix skin tones quickly and easily or that Nikon skin tones are bad or anything like that. So, I don't know where you got your "can't fix skin tone quickly and easily" comment ... reading way too much in between the lines where there isn't any, perhaps. :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

KacperP said:


> I also bought Kelby books. Terrible waste of money and paper, that haunts and pains me for a few years already, every time I see trees :'(
> Personally I'll try to keep out of my mind that switch.


Could you kindly guide me to a book that you've written on photographic excellence, so I can gain some valuable knowledge.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 21, 2014)

Rick said:


> Was Kelby speaking at 14 wps to match his new 1D X 14 fps? By comparison, it felt like Sammons was speaking at 3 wpm.
> 
> Kelby mentioned skin tones. Curious that the leader of Photoshop training can't fix skin tone quickly and easily in the software (though he can turn your skin polka-dotted in PS if he wants to). I would've have figured he had an action written specifically for that. Plenty of Nikon devotees claim skin tone is a simple matter in the software Kelby is supposed to be an uber-trainer for. Maybe Kelby should spend some time on the DPR Nikon forum.
> 
> I shoot both brands (camera and lenses) usually using both at the same location and neither reproduces color 100% accurately.



I suspect that it was a simple marketing ploy..."hey guys...I'm a famous photographer, who makes his money teaching others how to shoot stuff. I've just swapped over to Canon....becuase of erm...er...it feels like apple made it....erm...but hey...there's loads more Canon shooters than Nikon....so come and join one of my workshops and I'll show you how great it is" 

I reminds me of a particaulr scientific author who made a lot of money with a book which saind that he belives that there is a God....then in his next book he states the opposite, creating hysteria and hype...thus selling more books....the more controvesy, the richer he gets. I wonder what his next book will say? Like wise, I wonder about this guy...give it a few years and I wouldn't be suprised if he'll be telling everyone how the Nikon D5s is the best camera ever and feels like it's hard wired into his brain for some other twaddle.....


----------



## Rick (Jan 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Kelby mentioned skin tones. Curious that the leader of Photoshop training can't fix skin tone quickly and easily in the software (though he can turn your skin polka-dotted in PS if he wants to). I would've have figured he had an action written specifically for that. Plenty of Nikon devotees claim skin tone is a simple matter in the software Kelby is supposed to be an uber-trainer for.
> ...



It's humor dude. Get over it.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

Rick said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Rick said:
> ...


Same to you dude!


----------



## Smurf1811 (Jan 21, 2014)

I´m the guy who swapped the gear with Scott Kelby ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

Smurf1811 said:


> I´m the guy who swapped the gear with Scott Kelby ;D


So you gave him a brand new camera in exchange for his old worn-out one ;D


----------



## Skulker (Jan 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Smurf1811 said:
> 
> 
> > I´m the guy who swapped the gear with Scott Kelby ;D
> ...



Its humour dude! get over it. ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

Skulker said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Smurf1811 said:
> ...


Same to you dude!


----------



## Rick (Jan 21, 2014)

Did I hear Kelby correctly in the video when he was complaining about the D4 having to press the dial each time to scroll through each shot? I just tried my D800E and a single press/hold will scroll through all images automatically? Of course, if I want to stop and gaze at a particular image, I have to release my press. Same with a wheel, right? In fact, a press/hold seems easier than having to turn a wheel with the thumb as far as it can go, then repositioning the thumb on the wheel for the next batch.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

Rick said:


> Did I hear Kelby correctly in the video when he was complaining about the D4 having to press the dial each time to scroll through each shot? I just tried my D800E and a single press/hold will scroll through all images automatically? Of course, if I want to stop and gaze at a particular image, I have to release my press. Same with a wheel, right? In fact, a press/hold seems easier than having to turn a wheel with the thumb as far as it can go, then repositioning the thumb on the wheel for the next batch.


No it is not same with a wheel ... image playback with the Canon wheel is *much much* *faste*r than scrolling through the Nikon button system on any of the Nikon cameras ... there is a noticeable lag between two photos even when you hold down the button on a Nikon camera ... with the Canon wheel you can go crazy fast using your index finger or thumb to turn the whee real fast, it is lightning quick. Try it with your D800E and then the Canon 5D MK III to see the difference.


----------



## Rick (Jan 21, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Why does this "switching" by whoever to Canon gear matter at all?



Fanbois. It will matter to them. And you gotta think that NAPP has more than a few Nikon Fanbois who could get mad enough to put a dent in membership, especially after the lame, intelligence-insulting reasoning Kelby invoked. I would have respected "because I wanna" more than the things he claimed in the video. 

Basically, he's spinning BS for the benefit of his Nikon subscribers to NAPP which I think is dishonest if not explicitly it is self-deceiving .

I shoot both brands and I am a member of NAPP and I think beyond this video, Kelby has generally been a positive force in my photography but I gotta call a spade a spade on this one.


----------



## CanNotYet (Jan 21, 2014)

Well, as I chose Canon mainly on Ergonomics, I can see why that could sway him a bit.
Regarding the "built by Apple" comment, I think he is referring to what Apple still does best in the smartphone business; They build the most intuitive control system. IOS still (although IOS7 aint my cup of tea) blows Android et al out of the water when it comes to "easy to use". 

Canon also have very intuitive menues and control systems. I have tried Nikon, Olympus and (cough) Sony, but their menues are more confusing to operate than Canon's are. (well, to me at least)

So, I agree with Scott there.

Regarding the other parts of the switch, I think it just comes down to if it makes it easier to get the shots you want. The 1DX makes it easier for him to take the pictures he want from an NFL game, compared to the D4 (I think). As such, it is a logical switch.


----------



## Rick (Jan 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Did I hear Kelby correctly in the video when he was complaining about the D4 having to press the dial each time to scroll through each shot? I just tried my D800E and a single press/hold will scroll through all images automatically? Of course, if I want to stop and gaze at a particular image, I have to release my press. Same with a wheel, right? In fact, a press/hold seems easier than having to turn a wheel with the thumb as far as it can go, then repositioning the thumb on the wheel for the next batch.
> ...



First of all, I have both brands so I know how fast/slow everything is unless a D4/1D X are different from a D800E/5D3. Yes, I agree that a spin on the wheel is lightning quick, but how can one look for the correct exposure/composition, as Kelby claims he is doing, by spinning a wheel "lightning quick"?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

Rick said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Rick said:
> ...


I know, you already mentioned that you shoot with both the systems ... I too shoot with both the systems and a Sony, it does not mean we know everything.



Rick said:


> Yes, I agree that a spin on the wheel is lightning quick, but how can one look for the correct exposure/composition, as Kelby claims he is doing, by spinning a wheel "lightning quick"?


Good eye sight


----------



## joshmurrah (Jan 21, 2014)

Boy, there's some SERIOUS hate and bickering in this thread.

Kelby isn't my favorite trainer/expert/talking-head by any stretch, but I believe that his reasons were sound.

The skin tones, review speed, ergonomics are CRITICAL when you're doing sports photography... you don't have time to 'shop or browse your photos, they are delivered as-is out of the camera ASAP. He got hooked in from there, it's simple. 

Of course, Canon was wooing him, and he's well compensated/sponsored, as a lot of top evangelists/trainers/mouthpieces are, so that's a factor... is anyone really surprised.


----------



## Rick (Jan 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



That would be Real good eyesight.


----------



## Rick (Jan 21, 2014)

It looks to me like you just started the hating. 



joshmurrah said:


> Boy, there's some SERIOUS hate and bickering in this thread.
> 
> Kelby isn't my favorite trainer/expert/talking-head by any stretch, but I believe that his reasons were sound.
> 
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Jan 21, 2014)

joshmurrah said:


> Boy, there's some SERIOUS hate and bickering in this thread.



*That's* an understatement. I really can't believe all the negativity. And...this is on a Canon forum. 

Scott Kelby is successful...Scott Kelby is a businessman...shocking.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 21, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Scott Kelby is successful...Scott Kelby is a businessman...shocking.



You see, it's a bit like when doctors recommend a certain drug and then you discover they were taking money from the pharma company. Maybe they really believe the drug is great and being sponsored by its manufacturer has nothing to do with their professional opinion... but you'll never put the doubt 100% aside. 

We're certainly not a that level here, but in a way I believe many people felt like Kelby's economical interests _did_ get in the way of his photographic recommendations in this situation. Might be the theatricality of the whole thing.


----------



## DanielW (Jan 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Why does this "switching" by whoever to Canon gear matter at all? Well, except to maybe make all those wannabee "pros" feel more warm and fuzzy about their Canon purchases.
> ...



+1
I have a few books Scott Kelby wrote. I think it is great he is switching to Canon, even though his books are not brand-specific (hence no real advantage from that).
And yes, I agree he is not the greatest photographer ever, but I learned a lot from watching/reading his stuff, so that makes me grateful somehow. Maybe that is the reason I liked to know his gear is now like mine.
Cheers,
Daniel


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Kelby is successful...Scott Kelby is a businessman...shocking.
> ...


Nothing wrong in making money ... we are not forced to accept what he says and people aren't stupid to blindly follow whatever Kelby says ... its alright not to agree with Kelby or anyone else but spreading hate isn't .... many of us on this forum share our thoughts and recommend certain gear to others, but we don't get paid for it, that does not mean we are noble and Scott's recommendation has some sort of evil hidden agenda because he gets paid for it ... maybe our recommendation is not worth paying for ... but obviously a big multi-national corporation like Canon thinks its worth paying that guy, because he worked hard for it ... it's not like he is robbing people of their hard earned money from simple folk who don't know about photography ... he was talking about high end camera gear, people who generally buy that kind of gear aren't newbies, they are either professionals or very advanced hobbyists ... it ain't easy fooling them. What is stupid is when people on internet forums think that they are some sort of vigilanties out to save innocent people from any successful professional who is promoting a particular product. We don't like what the man says, that's fine, but accusing him of misleading people isn't fine. 
About "theatricality", if you've attended any of Scott Kelby or Joe McNally workshops or videos, you will see that, that's how they always are ... they aren't putting up a show, that how they always talk, it is their normal approach to all their presentations/videos/workshops.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ... in Scott Kelby's case, he is a lot more famous than us.



Actually, I'd never heard of him before reading this thread. I have, however, heard about you some time ago.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > ... in Scott Kelby's case, he is a lot more famous than us.
> ...


Now you know  ... one day or another we all learn about things we were ignorant of, today it was your turn


----------



## eli72 (Jan 21, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Kelby is successful...Scott Kelby is a businessman...shocking.
> ...



One thing that seems to get lost in this discussion is that Scott is NOT recommending that anyone switch to Canon. As a fairly high-profile camera person, he has been asked repeatedly why he made the switch, and so he decided to put together a video explaining that so that he wouldn't have to keep answering the question over and over. Whether you believe what he says, or whether you take it with a grain of salt, is YOUR decision. Personally, I have too much invested in Canon gear that I've acquired over the years to even think about changing, especially since my camera gear far exceeds my talents. But the photographer who shot my daughter's wedding 9 years ago switched from Canon to Nikon (prior to the introduction of the 5DIII and the 1Dx), and is perfectly happy with his choice.


----------



## gbchriste (Jan 21, 2014)

I have several of Kelby's books and have taken several of the on-line course offerings at KelbyTraining.com. I don't know what he does in his in-person dog and pony shows but his books and on-line offerings don't include any sales pitch whatsoever, at least up until now. The only time I've seen any differentiation between Nikon and Canon is in a few places where he inserted some important point about a procedure or approach to a problem that was different between the two. In those cases, it was a "how to", i.e. "You do it like this on Nikon, but like this on Canon." Never, "Nikon's way is far superior to Canon", yada yada yada.

Like I said, never been to one of his workshops or platform presentations so if he's been shilling on stage for Nikon all this time, it's something I'm not aware of. As long as the material I pay to get from him remains platform neutral, I'll gladly continue to buy it when I need it. What he uses in his own photography work is irrelevant to me. I doubt very seriously that tennis players, golfers and NASCAR drivers that have all those patches, decals and logos plastered all over thing actually use all of those product, or if they do, actually have a strong preference for either one. Premium motor oil is premium motor oil and I doubt that Jeff Gordon would really tell any difference if his crew put Penzoil instead of Quaker State in his car. He wears the Quaker State patch on his outfit because he was paid to.

If the Kelby materials I buy morph into a Canon sales pitch, I'll drop him. I don't need to waste money paying for what amounts to an advertisement for the platform I already own and if I were a Nikon user, I wouldn't want to pay money for an advertisement trying to get me to switch.

I'm pretty sure Kelby will keep doing what he's always done - creating and delivering decent quality training materials that most photographers can put to use right away making their lives a little easier.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Very well said. 

As an aside, I think it's particularly weird that people feel the need to accuse Mr. Kelby of somehow "selling out" or being dishonest because he likes Canon cameras and is saying so. Do people somehow ignore the fact that the entire National Association of Photoshop Professionals and the rest of Mr. Kelby's empire is intimately tied to Adobe? 

Now. I don't have any problem with that. Mr. Kelby is upfront about his ties to and support of and from Adobe, as well as any number of other brands. Why is it wrong for him to use Canon cameras and publicly acknowledge that?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

eli72 said:


> One thing that seems to get lost in this discussion is that Scott is NOT recommending that anyone switch to Canon. As a fairly high-profile camera person, he has been asked repeatedly why he made the switch, and so he decided to put together a video explaining that so that he wouldn't have to keep answering the question over and over.


+1


----------



## deleteme (Jan 21, 2014)

When I switched from film (Nikon) to digital (Canon) I thought the ergonomics on all the digital cameras sucked. They just sucked in different ways. 
I am still with Canon 11 years later and I still think the controls are annoying and slow. However my 17TS-E keeps me from any other camera manufacturer.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 21, 2014)

joshmurrah said:


> Boy, there's some SERIOUS hate and bickering in this thread.



If you honestly believe this is true, I think you must have been born and raised in Disneyland.

What I see are people saying what they think, and that's a fine thing. Thanks to good mods and posters, we don't have actual flame wars here.

If someone's opinion offends you, deal with it.

No one goes through this world without being offended. Life is about being offended. How you cope with it determines how successful, happy you are.

One thing I'd ask: If Kelby is so smart, why did it take him so long to figure out that Canon is superior? And another, why did it take Canon so long to get in the game and recruit him?


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 21, 2014)

jrista said:


> Based on DXO tests (i.e. "on paper"), no, the 1D X high ISO is theoretically the same as the D4. However, from a visual standpoint, I've seen ISO 16000 images and even some ISO 51200 sports images from a 1D X that simply blow me away...similar images from the D4 just don't engender the same feeling of low noise and clean quality.



That is because the DXO tests are CRAP. What a "sensor" rating is versus the pictures produced and the capabilities of the bodies are two VERY different things

Which would your want - Nikon D600 or Nikon D4 as a pro camera... According to DXO marks, the "sensor" on the D600 is close to 10% better than the D4.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

distant.star said:


> joshmurrah said:
> 
> 
> > Boy, there's some SERIOUS hate and bickering in this thread.
> ...


Are you sure *you* are not offended? .. coz Joshmurrah's comments do not sound like a person who is offended ... but your comments about him being "born and raised in disneyland" sound a bit personal and it looks like you are somehow offended by what he said.


----------



## slakjaw (Jan 21, 2014)

I too am thinking about switching to Canon. I am getting more and more into video and it would be cool to someday make the transition to something like the C100 seamlessly.
Not sure my reasons are totally logical though. Nikon has been screwing up badly with the D600 and then not acknowledging the issues even exist. Plus most video guys are already using Canon or Panny 

What kind of loss would I take by switching though? The thought of taking a huge loss on my D800 and all my glass keeps me with Nikon for now.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 21, 2014)

unfocused said:


> As an aside, I think it's particularly weird that people feel the need to accuse Mr. Kelby of somehow "selling out" or being dishonest because he likes Canon cameras and is saying so.



No one is accusing anyone because no crime has been committed.

Mr Kelby is a well known photography expert, and as such his words have more impact than mine, yours, this whole forum put together. He is a living ad machine: companies know it and so does he. So I guess it's smart to at least wonder if he might have untold reasons for declaring this or that. Same as Ken Rockwell is not, by and large, considered the most unbiased reviewer.

The whole thing depends on how likely you think it is that Mr Kelby never got a chance to play with a 1Dx before 6 months ago, then it was love at first sight. For all his talk about ergonomy, skin tones and UI, I would say with any Canon camera at all, actually. How likely it is that someone like him has to "switch system" instead of just adding Canon gear to his Nikon kit. And please mind the fact that switching means making a mutually-exclusive choice. It's either this or that.

I believe he has been using Canon and Nikon stuff, and probably also Sony, Leica and whatnot (he is a gear geek by his own admission) for a long time. In the past he had reasons to present himself as a Nikon guy, now he has reasons to claim a "switch" to Canon. All fine for him, but let's try not to infer universal photographic truths out of this.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 21, 2014)

Serious hate and bickering? Don't make generalizations about doctors. (All I "prescribe" is formalin) 
Kelby must be an effective teacher, because his books and clinics have sold very well for a very long time. Kudos to him. 

All that aside, re the OP: ergonomics are important. If a camera is not comfortable to use, it won't get used. I decided to give one of the Sigma compacts a try. It went out for a day, and then sat around unused for a while until I located a grip/L bracket combo for it. It is an enjoyable camera now. Lenses: I like lenses with big fat focusing rings. Again, this is an ergonomics issue, because I do a fair amount of manual focus work.

Slakjaw, you could get a 70D and one STM lens, and still keep the D800 and most of the glass. In fact, if you want to focus manually, you could get a "beater" Rebel or 60D or 5D2, kit it out with Magic Lantern firmware, and use your Nikon glass via adapter - get the kind of adapter that is labeled "for G series" (allowing aperture control), and get a good quality one. Expect to pay over $100.00 for a decent leaf-spring-containing adapter. I use old AIS lenses on my 6D, with a "older F mount lenses" adapter (Fotodiox Pro).


----------



## Jeffrey (Jan 21, 2014)

For those of us who are lucky enough to own a 1D-X or a 5D-III, one has to ask what took Kelby so long to see the benefits in features and image quality these cameras have over what he has previously been shooting. 

Sure, Kelby is entertaining and his books are helpful at times as reference materials. Do I care what cameras he shoots? About as much as he cares about what cameras I shoot.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Are you sure *you* are not offended? .. coz Joshmurrah's comments do not sound like a person who is offended ... but your comments about him being "born and raised in disneyland" sound a bit personal and it looks like you are somehow offended by what he said.



I'm offended by just about everything and everybody. Anyone who is not is probably delusional.

As Sartre suggests, hell is other people. Yet I can't resist taking pictures of them!


----------



## brett b (Jan 21, 2014)

Jeffrey said:


> For those of us who are lucky enough to own a 1D-X or a 5D-III, one has to ask what took Kelby so long to see the benefits in features and image quality these cameras have over what he has previously been shooting.
> 
> Sure, Kelby is entertaining and his books are helpful at times as reference materials. Do I care what cameras he shoots? About as much as he cares about what cameras I shoot.



+1
I've been to a number of his courses and he doesn't seem to be much of a "shill". Yes, his businesses are closely aligned with Adobe, but teaching Adobe products is what he does and why people attend. I've been a NAPP & Kelby Training member forever and have many of his books. None of his products advocate one camera system over another.


----------



## KacperP (Jan 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> KacperP said:
> 
> 
> > I also bought Kelby books. Terrible waste of money and paper, that haunts and pains me for a few years already, every time I see trees :'(
> ...


I could ask the same about books YOU wrote 
Anyway I prefer focus on subject, detailed inside-out explanations down to paradoxes that Michael Freeman delivers.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Jan 21, 2014)

I have been to four NAPP seminars down here in LA and loved each one of them, most recently with Joe McNally, before that with Mr. Kelby..at no time did eather one push a Camera brand, of which is nice because their work speaks for itself. The first one I went to was with Ben Willmore and he is a Canon User... Joe McNally was having issues with his Nikon Flash units as they are line of sight...They work over quite a distance but have issues when something remotly gets in the way...I was having fun watching him fumble around with his D4 trying to get them to work...
It was intresting to hear Scott's interview, glad he made the video.


----------



## LostArk (Jan 21, 2014)

Nikon controls feel thoroughly backwards to me, in a way that no amount of getting used to could change. So I understand the ergonomics argument.


----------



## gbchriste (Jan 21, 2014)

In re: the question of ergonomics.

I was having a discussion on metering techniques with a group of people and said that when I meter off of an 18% grey surface like the Lastolite EZBalance, I bump the meter needle a little to the right of center to increase exposure by 1/3 to 2/3 stops.

Whereupon a Nikon shooter in the group said that Nikon meters are backwards and the needle moves left at exposure increases.

My only response was, "In what bizaro universe do increasing values on a number line go right to left, instead of left to right."

I could get used to a lot of things but that one I'm not sure I would ever be able to adapt to.


----------



## Stu (Jan 21, 2014)

It may be the bodies. It may be the lenses. Perhaps it is a NDA and the latest pro body (46 mp?) that helped. It certainly wasn't ETTL-II. Whatever it was Scott has the right to use whatever camera system he wishes. He could be like Michael Reichmann and use a variety of systems (my choice, if I could afford it -- the right tool for the job).


----------



## slakjaw (Jan 21, 2014)

gbchriste said:


> In re: the question of ergonomics.
> 
> I was having a discussion on metering techniques with a group of people and said that when I meter off of an 18% grey surface like the Lastolite EZBalance, I bump the meter needle a little to the right of center to increase exposure by 1/3 to 2/3 stops.
> 
> ...



you can switch that, there is a menu item for it.


----------



## ksagomonyants (Jan 21, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> I’m not sure how much Mr Kelby paid for the Canon gear he now has, but I hypothesize it was at a discount.



+1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 21, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Based on DXO tests (i.e. "on paper"), no, the 1D X high ISO is theoretically the same as the D4. However, from a visual standpoint, I've seen ISO 16000 images and even some ISO 51200 sports images from a 1D X that simply blow me away...similar images from the D4 just don't engender the same feeling of low noise and clean quality.
> ...



They are not crap and they are what they are. They claim to be a sensor rating and they are sensor rating. It's your fault if you expect a sensor rating to be an entire body performance or a lens performance or OLED TV performance rating.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 21, 2014)

Rick said:


> Did I hear Kelby correctly in the video when he was complaining about the D4 having to press the dial each time to scroll through each shot? I just tried my D800E and a single press/hold will scroll through all images automatically? Of course, if I want to stop and gaze at a particular image, I have to release my press. Same with a wheel, right? In fact, a press/hold seems easier than having to turn a wheel with the thumb as far as it can go, then repositioning the thumb on the wheel for the next batch.



Wht about the timing though, can you let go at the exact moment you want? And what about speed? With the wheel you can flip at whatever speed you want, ultra fast or medium or slow.

Also I think he said the max speed on the Nikon was pretty slow. never used the D4 myself though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 21, 2014)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



How are you processing though? Because direct measurement BEFORE RAW converters do under the hood whatever, which may vary camera to camera even with sliders set to the same thing, the D4 has less chroma noise. Under natural lighting the D4 seems to have getting near 1 stop LESS chroma noise at very high ISO. It does seem that under tungsten lighting they may become about the same though.

It does seem that the 1DX might have somewhat more than 1/3 stop better DR once you get well above ISO6400 though.

So maybe under certain weird artificial lighting the Canon has similar luminace and chroma SNR but somewhat more than 1/3 stop better DR and 2 extra MP so maybe it does slightly better in that case.

I still find it hard to believe that somehow adds up to the 1DX looking way better at high iso. I haven't heard anyone but Scott and you say that. Maybe if you are reallllly pushing it way up there under weird types of artificial lighting it's enough to at least notice the difference in 1DX favor though. It still would seem a bit curious he makes such a huge deal about it though and ignores all the other sensor aspects.

Also he also implied the 5D3 blows away his D4 at high ISO, but the 5D3 has worse SNR, worse chroma noise and more noticeably worse DR at very high ISO than the D4. Granted the 23MP vs 16MP might the 'grain' tighter which helps make up some of the measured differences since the eye prefers smaller grain. But I still find it dubious to think the 5D3 would appear to blow the D4 away at high ISO.


----------



## jrista (Jan 21, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



It isn't me processing. It is other people, who have written well-known 1D X reviews, from whom I linked example images. They tend to process with LR, although some may process with DPP.

I think this is part of the problem with DXO results. That they are solely based on pre-demosic results. NO ONE uses RAW without demosaicing them! Every time a person views a RAW image, it has been demosaiced. And, given the plethora of visual examples on the web, the 1D X, regardless of whether sample images are produced with DPP or LR/ACR or anything else, clearly has lower noise at higher ISO settings. Especially color noise.

I think the notion of testing pre-demosaic RAW is rather misleading in many respects. I do not think that demosaicing will really change the difference between Canon and SoNikon DR all that much, maybe by a third of a stop or so. But however things work, however the algorithms in DPP and LR work, Canon results, without any additional downsampling, clearly improve AFTER they have been demosaiced. I think that is an important factor.

Also, I never expected you to take my word for it. I linked several examples in my previous answer. Just take a look. The results speak for themselves. (And those are not my images, they were taken from other well-known 1D X tests, from other people, besides Scott and myself, who ALSO say that the 1D X has less color noise at high ISO.) I don't believe there is "funky artificial lighting" or anything like that that has anything to do with the 1D X results. That's illogical, as the D4 comparison images are captured under that same light. Lighting isn't going to change how deep the shadows are post-digitizing...your really grasping at straws there. It's just a bunch of reviewers pointing the camera at something that is normally lit an taking some photos, then performing a visual analysis of the results. Just LOOK at the examples...the 1D X is clearly superior with color noise and in the shadows. 

Artificial tests don't tell the whole story. Real-world tests, across the board, indicate that the 1D X has rather exceptional high ISO performance all the way up to ISO 51200. Those results FIT with the THEORY as well...it is EXPECTED that the 1D X would have less color noise and deeper shadows, because the pixel value are being amplified at the pixel, CDSed, then digitized. The D4, on the other hand, is amplified & CDSed at the pixel only up to ISO 12800, then it is digitally amplified by another stop or two to achieve ISO 25600 and 51200. It is EXPECTED that the D4 shadows would not be as rich and deep or have as low color noise as Canon's. So, it really shouldn't be all that surprising that real-world visual examples correlate with what I've said here.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 21, 2014)

The video was serious bull shit. Ive always been a Canon guy for SLRs / DSLRs I also use Olympus Pen cameras because of size and actually the Olympus glass is pretty good. 
For me to change to Nikon would have to be more than skin tones and a few menu functions are we seriosly saying their is such a gulf between Nikon & Canon regarding skin tones I dont think so.


----------



## TeenTog (Jan 22, 2014)

> Basically, he's spinning BS for the benefit of his Nikon subscribers to NAPP which I think is dishonest if not explicitly it is self-deceiving



Obviously he said the things he did to do a bit of damage control, but he explicitly stated that he wasn't being paid (directly, at least) to switch. He added a couple reasons why he switched, which I think is totally fair if not expected. Although I'm sure "because I wanna" was a factor in Kelby switching to Canon, I'm finding it hard to believe that he wouldn't have any other reasons to switch, or that he shouldn't share them with the subjects of his empire. His points were all valid, and didn't sound BS to me. Overall Kelby is a pretty decent human being, and doesn't seem the type to deliberately pull things over people's eyes


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 22, 2014)

KacperP said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > KacperP said:
> ...


Naaah, I don't have the same talent like you, since you sounded so sure about his books being a "waste of money" and that it is "haunting you for so many years", I figured you might've written a book or two on photographic excellence  ... if you haven't written one already, its perhaps the haunting experience, which is holding you back ... I blame Kelby for this irrepairable loss, damn you Scott Kelby ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 22, 2014)

distant.star said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Are you sure *you* are not offended? .. coz Joshmurrah's comments do not sound like a person who is offended ... but your comments about him being "born and raised in disneyland" sound a bit personal and it looks like you are somehow offended by what he said.
> ...


That is a great philosophy to live by ;D ... Dale Carnegie shold have included that in his book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" ;D


----------



## robinlamkie (Jan 22, 2014)

Kelby camera images are usually of a generic black camera.


----------



## sanj (Jan 22, 2014)

My take on menu systems is that it does not matter. It is all about getting used to. People use different phones, cameras, computer operating systems etc and get used to the menu with use and a study of the manual. 

Onces they are used to it they get by just fine. But when they change device they have to re-learn and feel that the earlier system was easier until they time they learn the new system and are comfortable again.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jan 22, 2014)

distant.star said:


> joshmurrah said:
> 
> 
> > Boy, there's some SERIOUS hate and bickering in this thread.
> ...


----------



## MLfan3 (Jan 22, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > As an aside, I think it's particularly weird that people feel the need to accuse Mr. Kelby of somehow "selling out" or being dishonest because he likes Canon cameras and is saying so.
> ...



well said I think you are right , many of celeb pros like Scott have access to many many brand systems.
and many of us here use many many camera systems.
Ipersonally use Sony Canon and Nikon but I do not have plan to sell any of them anytime soon.
so I guess I cannot understand why some one rich like him has to make a poor switch from brand a to b when even a poor man like me can afford keeping all my 3 or 4 camera systems intact.

so he is dishonest and I am sure he is shooting many many brands kit when no TV cameras catch him.
he is a rich guy he can afford keeping all his Nikon and add Canon if he really thinks Canon skin tone is that much better than that of Nikon(personally I agree with him on the skin tone comment though).


----------



## MLfan3 (Jan 22, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Based on DXO tests (i.e. "on paper"), no, the 1D X high ISO is theoretically the same as the D4. However, from a visual standpoint, I've seen ISO 16000 images and even some ISO 51200 sports images from a 1D X that simply blow me away...similar images from the D4 just don't engender the same feeling of low noise and clean quality.
> ...




easy, if you do not shoot any sports, then go for the D610, which has vastly better sensor than the D4.
but what Nikon did to us D600/D800 owners , I cannnot tolerate the D610 around me , so I did not buy it.
but if there was no dust issue or shutter issue , it is a better all around camera than the D4 or the D800.
I had all the 3 and I kept the D800E.
honestly, the D4 is you know a weak camera , the 1DX is a much better body , this is why Nikon only Nikon updates its sports camera.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jan 22, 2014)

slakjaw said:


> I too am thinking about switching to Canon. I am getting more and more into video and it would be cool to someday make the transition to something like the C100 seamlessly.
> Not sure my reasons are totally logical though. Nikon has been screwing up badly with the D600 and then not acknowledging the issues even exist. Plus most video guys are already using Canon or Panny
> 
> What kind of loss would I take by switching though? The thought of taking a huge loss on my D800 and all my glass keeps me with Nikon for now.



I think you may want to get a 5D3+ 2 AF lenses in addition to your current Nikon set up and use an adapter to use all your Nikon lenses.
I have only 3 Canon AF lenses and 6 Zeiss primes, Nikon old D primes and some Samyong primes for Nikon and I use all my F mount lenses on both and Sony.

in this way keeping many systems is not that expensive , when I need fast AF , then I use Canon 5D3 + 70-200mm L IS lens , the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8VR is a ok lens but not as good as the Sony or Canon similar zooms.
the Sony 135mm f1.8 ZA is a super sharp lens and this and 50mm f1.4ZA , I always keep at least on A mount camera.
there is ntohing wrong about having many cameras from many different brands , only die hard fanboys hate the idea or deny it.

all brands are good , but for AF or video , I think the 5D3 is the camera to get.
for sheer resolution or DR , the A7R is the best.
for extremely cold place , I think the OM1 is the camera to beat.
but if I have to keep only one camera , I 'd get the A99v or the 5D3, they are extremely versatile.
the D800E does many things ok but it cannot be the best in any particular area of photography.
the TSE lenses are better than Nikon PCE , so for buildings or interior , the A7R + Canon tSE beats the Nikon D800E + PCE set up.

so try the Canon but do not sell the Nikon before you test them side by side in real life for a month or so.
even then , I do not recommend selling either, keep both and share the F mount lenses for most of things.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 22, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Now you know  ... one day or another we all learn about things we were ignorant of, today it was your turn



I have learned many things, which in retrospect I would have preferred to have stayed blissfully ignorant of.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 22, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Now you know  ... one day or another we all learn about things we were ignorant of, today it was your turn
> ...


Don't we all ;D ... Peace. Have a nice day.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 22, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> so he is dishonest and I am sure he is shooting many many brands kit when no TV cameras catch him.


Holy sh!t!  ???  ???  ???


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 22, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> The video was serious bull S___. Ive always been a Canon guy for SLRs / DSLRs I also use Olympus Pen cameras because of size and actually the Olympus glass is pretty good.
> For me to change to Nikon would have to be more than skin tones and a few menu functions are we seriosly saying their is such a gulf between Nikon & Canon regarding skin tones I dont think so.



Note that he didn't get rid of his Nikon gear, he said he hasn't used it in a while, but he still has it.

This isn't a "switching" event, it's actually a "discovering" event. If you were offered a free Nikon D4 and lens kit I'm sure you wouldn't have to think for very long.


----------



## CanNotYet (Jan 22, 2014)

gbchriste said:


> In re: the question of ergonomics.
> 
> I was having a discussion on metering techniques with a group of people and said that when I meter off of an 18% grey surface like the Lastolite EZBalance, I bump the meter needle a little to the right of center to increase exposure by 1/3 to 2/3 stops.
> 
> ...


Well, in the bizarro universe of Arabic, maybe? The reason we think increasing goes left to right is because we write that way, left to right. Arabic is written right to left, making the practice of increasing right to left thoroughly logical. 

Come to think of if, Chinese/Japanese is, if I do not misremember, traditionally written top-to-bottom, making an increasing scale where higher numbers are lower, a logical choice. (Although I would find that even harder to get used to)

Anyway, as someone said earlier, it is customizable. (as it should be)


----------



## cayenne (Jan 22, 2014)

bdeutsch said:


> If you listen to and pay attention to Kelby, it's clear that he's a business man first, a Photoshop guy 2nd, and shooting is a distant third at best. Like many others in this forum, I find it very unlikely that the _shooter_ made the decision; it surely was the _ business man_.
> 
> Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photographer



Nothing wrong with that.....everyone has to earn a living.

C


----------



## gbchriste (Jan 22, 2014)

CanNotYet said:


> gbchriste said:
> 
> 
> > In re: the question of ergonomics.
> ...



I was trained in Modern Hebrew by the United States Air Force and worked as a Hebrew-English translator for 7 years so I'm intimately familiar with the textual representation of numbers in other language systems. Dating from Biblical times, written Hebrew can sometimes use letters of the alphabet to represent numbers e.g. aleph (the first Hebrew letter) = 1, bet (the second Hebrew letter) = 2, and so on. And when combined to form larger numbers, those letters are indeed written from right to left.

However, the representation of numeric values in written text or oral speech is not the same thing as a mathematical and visual representation of the behavior of those values. I would bet my next pay check that when a Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, or any other nationality of student sits down in school and opens their geometry text to the section on Cartesian coordinates, the X values increase to the right and decrease to the left.

If a Chinese colleague and I are standing on opposite sides of the Prime Meridian - he to the east and me to the west - and we both have our GPS devices set to display coordinates in degrees-decimal format - his bought in Beijing, mine in Washington DC - his longitude will be displayed as a positive number, mine as a negative number. The absolute value of those numbers will increase as we each move in opposite directions farther to the east and west, respectively - i.e. my values will decrease as I move left and his will increase as he moves right.

The speedometer in my Arabic friend's car shows increasing values as the dial moves clockwise (i.e. left to right) around the face.

There is no magic law that says it must be so. After all, north, south, east and west and how they are visually oriented on a map or globe are entirely arbitrary. We could just as easily have been socialized to accept Antarctica as the "top" of the world. But for now human kind has settled on a convention that says when visually depicting the progression of numerical values, those values increase from left to right (or bottom to top).


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 22, 2014)

Wow, this has turned out to be a really bizarre thread. I thought people would be confused why he didn't mention lenses like the 85 1.2 II that Canon has over the Nikon system.

Or the fact that I want my 12 minutes back. I like Kelby (his books are great for beginners), but the video was long and not exactly interesting.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 22, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ...Or the fact that I want my 12 minutes back...the video was long and not exactly interesting.



Makes me glad I stopped it at about the 2 minute mark. I just wish I had done the same with this thread.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 22, 2014)

unfocused said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ...Or the fact that I want my 12 minutes back...the video was long and not exactly interesting.
> ...


LOL, I hear ya.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 22, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Makes me glad I stopped it at about the 2 minute mark. *I just wish I had done the same with this thread*.


Maybe, it is because you were are "unfocused" ;D ... the video was waaaay too long for what he wanted to convey, he could have done it in less than 2 minutes ... but all his videos on the "Grid" show are bloody loooong, that's why I had stopped watching it after the first couple of shows in 2011 ... they used to have a series called "D-Town TV", which was very educational and short (I think they changed the name of the series to "Photography Tips and Tricks" ... even the format has changed for the worse).


----------



## slclick (Jan 22, 2014)

Scott called and told me the real reason, They introduced him to Suzy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7gpQvOrFo


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 22, 2014)

slclick said:


> Scott called and told me the real reason, They introduced him to Suzy.
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7gpQvOrFo


  ???  ???  ??? ... I want my 2.22 minutes back


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 22, 2014)

If Canon GAVE me a 1DX I'd use it too!


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 22, 2014)

slclick said:


> Scott called and told me the real reason, They introduced him to Suzy.
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7gpQvOrFo



I presume that's Canons answer to Nikons 'Pure Photography' video. 

Well I know which one I'd rather go wondering in the woods with.......


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 22, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Scott called and told me the real reason, They introduced him to Suzy.
> ...


Let me guess, Suzy right? ;D ... good choice


----------



## Quasimodo (Jan 22, 2014)

slclick said:


> Scott called and told me the real reason, They introduced him to Suzy.
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7gpQvOrFo



So now we have descended to calling him a pedophile? 

If this is an actual ad (I think not) it would have been the worst in my life. The North Korean newreader is worse, but at least she has entertainment value


----------



## slclick (Jan 22, 2014)

Quasimodo said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Scott called and told me the real reason, They introduced him to Suzy.
> ...


----------



## Quasimodo (Jan 22, 2014)

slclick said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



It was a joke, and I appologize. It was not my intention to be rude, just a lame attempt at humor in a more and more absurd thread.


----------



## slclick (Jan 22, 2014)

Quasimodo said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...


----------



## Quasimodo (Jan 23, 2014)

slclick said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Yeah, your right; I completely missed the sarcasm  Life is too short to get tangled into squabbles over inane things such as Suzy mimicking emotions in her surreal video


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 23, 2014)

Quasimodo said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...


I knew he was joking. By the way, squabbling over Scott is stupid coz while we are squabbling over his name, he is laughing all the way to the bank .... but Suzy is cute, so she is worth squabbling over, who knows one us might get lucky ;D ... unless one of you has already called the dibs on her ;D


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 23, 2014)

I just wonder how many people will truly base their camera buying decision on what Kelby shoots?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> This isn't the first time I've heard a Nikon shooter rave about Canon ergonomics. There is something about it that is indeed superior.



its the number one reason i sold all my nikon stuff and changed to 100% canon after using both side by side for about a year


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 26, 2014)

now only joe mcnally has to switch.

im not a big fan of scott kelby but joe mcnally... that´s a different story.
with canons RT flashes he had a reason.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 26, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> now only joe mcnally has to switch.
> 
> im not a big fan of scott kelby but joe mcnally... that´s a different story.
> with canons RT flashes he had a reason.


Scott is first and foremost a photoshop guy, an instructor, a musician and then a photographer ... but Joe McNally is a die hard photographer to the core and then an instructor ... if I'm not wrong, from one of his videos, I recollect him saying that he does not get into post processing himself, instead he's got a team of 2 or 3 people who do that for him ... and he is a die hard Nikon user, and he just loves the Nikon CLS as he is really into useing a lot of speedlites in his photography and does it brilliantly ... I don't think he will switch to Canon.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 27, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > now only joe mcnally has to switch.
> ...


Rienz is definitely right, and Joe McNally shot photos for the D4 launch and brochure so he has deep ties to Nikon. What's funny, though, is that I know one of his former assistants and he shoots with Canon ;D


----------

