# Why We Switched to Nikon



## Braineack

Interesting blog post I happened upon today:

The 3 Reasons Why We Switched to Nikon Hoffer Photography Modern Philadelphia Wedding Photographers

This particular link was what really astounded me:



> Then, a few weeks ago I saw my friend Joel post THIS comparison.
> Somehow it was different seeing it from someone I know. It confirmed what I had suspected about the crazy dynamic range difference between Nikon and Canon. We have always pushed our files pretty hard since we tend to underexpose and recover. That was the first time I really started to wonder.


----------



## jaomul

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


----------



## astroNikon

Yeah, but what does Hoffer really think ??
LMAO

very interesting blog
but he has to find the double and triple (and more) exposure features of the Nikon as of yet.


----------



## Braineack

@jaomul - So what you're saying is you didn't read it?

OR are you suggesting "Nikon Fanboys" all have over $25K in Canon equipment?

I mean I own the first Canon Digital Rebel, but I don't think I can get $25,000 out of it.


----------



## photoguy99

Total shill.


----------



## Vtec44

Something that Canon is WAY ahead of Nikon:  marketing .


----------



## ronlane

Vtec44 said:


> Something that Canon is WAY ahead of Nikon:  marketing .



And megpixel's, well as soon as the 5Ds and 5Ds R come out in June.


----------



## Braineack

photoguy99 said:


> Total shill.



How so?  You're suggesting this wedding photographing couple and longtime Canon shooters were paid by Nikon to switch teams and post that blog post?


----------



## Vtec44

ronlane said:


> And megpixel's, well as soon as the 5Ds and 5Ds R come out in June.



Heck, Nokia had Nikon beat with their 41mp camera phone a while back.  I should have sold all my Nikon gear to get the Nokia Lumia 1020.


----------



## jaomul

Braineack said:


> @jaomul - So what you're saying is you didn't read it?
> 
> OR are you suggesting "Nikon Fanboys" all have over $25K in Canon equipment?
> 
> I mean I own the first Canon Digital Rebel, but I don't think I can get $25,000 out of it.



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

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

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


----------



## Braineack

So because they have a good tool with great recovery abilities, they shouldn't utilize it because it's considered bad practice?


----------



## Vtec44

jaomul said:


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



DR helps when you shoot a wedding ceremony at sunset where the sun is directly behind the subject.  That only happen at like almost  every outdoor wedding that I've shot.  I'd say that's at least 3 stops in pushing shadows and still retain details in highlights to make a dramatic sky.


----------



## astroNikon

We've had Canon wedding photogs jump to Nikon d750 here .. kinda sounded the same as the blog.

kinda like this ==> Nikon D750 vs. Canon 5D MKII Photography Forum


----------



## jaomul

Vtec44 said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> They talk about underexoposing to save highlights and they are wedding shooters, but how much are they underexposing by, a stop or 4 stops. Any raw file can be pushed a stop or so if shot correctly at lowish iso. Anything more required is bad practice, understandable in landscape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DR helps when you shoot a wedding ceremony at sunset where the sun is directly behind the subject.  That only happen like almost at every outdoor wedding that I've shot.
Click to expand...


I agree, but are you underexposed by more than a stop, or do you do what 95% of pro shooters do and use a flash, or do you sell 25 grand worth of gear so you don't need a flash for 2 shots each wedding


----------



## Braineack

astroNikon said:


> We've had Canon wedding photogs jump to Nikon d750 here .. kinda sounded the same as the blog.


Troll Shills.


----------



## fjrabon

This seems a bit overly dramatic, almost to the point of detracting from the fact that Nikon truly does have an advantage in DR that is significant at this point.


----------



## Vtec44

jaomul said:


> I agree, but are you underexposed by more than a stop, or do you do what 95% of pro shooters do and use a flash, or do you sell 25 grand worth of gear so you don't need a flash for 2 shots each wedding



Did you just tell me to use flash at a wedding ceremony?  :O

1.  Too far to setup flash.
2.  Can't really set up flash without being obstructive at a wedding ceremony.
3.  A lot of weddings do not allow flashes to be use during the ceremony portion.

Isle entrance, groom's reaction, hand over, vow exchange, ring ceremony, first kiss, isle exit are some of the important shots.  That alone is a bit more than 2 shots to  me.   BTW,  I have spent almost as much on lighting gear as I do on cameras and lenses.   

One thing I do love about the Canon system is the newer f1.2 lenses... and that scroll button.  Well, that would make 2 things


----------



## Forkie

I only wish I could read it...


----------



## astroNikon

Forkie said:


> I only wish I could read ...


  ==> Reading Bear free phonics vocabulary...learn to read for free 


ooh .. did I accidentally erase "it"


----------



## Derrel

The sample Canon 5D-II vs Nikon D750 photo you linked to at Cometh the 5D-S R down the isle.... - FM Forums

shows a deliberate underexposure recovery test. The 5-stop underexposure software recovery of the Canon 5D Mark II shot is* literally filled, across the entire frame, with God-awful, patterned, color noise* that utterly ruins the photo for professional use. The Nikon file is pretty usable, with no trace of color or pattern noise.

But it's not just about underexposing a shot by five full EV--the practical aspect is that with a modern Nikon, a person can expose to protect the highlights from blowing out, and can then make what were formerly, literally IMPOSSIBLE shadow recovery adjustments in software. Without the strong pattern and color noise than Canon has been plagued with for years.

Hey...8-track tapes were once considered perfectly good. But eventually CD-ROM came along. Same fundamental problems: sticking with outdated technology means that eventually, your company **is behind** the leaders, at least in some ways.

Part II - Controlled tests

Anywayyyy, threads like this really don't do much except inflame Canon system users. I still have a little bit of Canon stuff around, my 5D and 20D, 70-200/2.8 L IS USM, 135/2-L and 135/2.8 Soft focus, but have sold off the 50/1.4, the 580 EX-II, 24-105 L IS USM, and 85/1.8 EF lenses. I shot the 20D two weekends ago with a photo student of mine, and was shocked at how narrow the dynamic range of the RAW files was on a bright sunny day. I know the 20D sensor is old, and outdated, but what I am used to with the now-old D3x and the first-generation SONY EXMOR sensor it has has now been beaten by yet another full EV worth of DR by the newest Nikon bodies.

Canon still has some great lenses in its systems, but I think the real nugget is that for the wedding shooter, the amazing shadow recovery, low noise at high ISO, and the sheer "workability" of these files from the newer Nikons means much easier file processing, and also easier shooting, with MUCH less absolute "need" for using fill lighting in fast-developing situations over 3,4,5,6,7,8-hour wedding shoots.


----------



## jaomul

Vtec44 said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but are you underexposed by more than a stop, or do you do what 95% of pro shooters do and use a flash, or do you sell 25 grand worth of gear so you don't need a flash for 2 shots each wedding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just tell me to use flash at a wedding ceremony?  :O
> 
> 1.  Too far to setup flash.
> 2.  Can't really set up flash without being obstructive at a wedding ceremony.
> 3.  A lot of weddings do not allow flashes to be use during the ceremony portion.
> 
> Isle entrance, groom's reaction, hand over, vow exchange, ring ceremony, first kiss, isle exit are some of the important shots.  That alone is a bit more than 2 shots to  me.   BTW,  I have spent almost as much on lighting gear as I do on cameras and lenses.
> 
> One thing I do love about the Canon system is the newer f1.2 lenses... and that scroll button.
Click to expand...


Sorry. Missed the part about ceremony. Thought you meant a sunset shot. I'm learning here all the time. I live in Ireland, very few weddings outdoor and I never knew there was such a thing as a sunset ceremony. I did however day that I agreed with some points made in the link but it's popcorn. I do think that a good photographer would still manage that sunset shot on a Canon. I also agree extra dr is always an advantage


----------



## runnah

Couple points.

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Vtec44

jaomul said:


> Sorry. Missed the part about ceremony. Thought you meant a sunset shot. I'm learning here all the time. I live in Ireland, very few weddings outdoor and I never knew there was such a thing as a sunset ceremony. I did however day that I agreed with some points made in the link but it's popcorn. I do think that a good photographer would still manage that sunset shot on a Canon. I also agree extra dr is always an advantage



To be honest, use whatever gear you're comfortable with to produce what your clients want.  The important thing is to know your gear.  I've seen plenty of amazing and award winning shots by Canon, probably a lot more than Nikon because of the larger market share.  I'm just bored online a lot of what I say works for me, not necessary the standards or right.


----------



## JustJazzie

runnah said:


> Couple points.
> 
> 1. Sure comparing a camera that came out this year to one that came out several years ago will yield better results. Not saying that the DR isn't better in Nikon, just saying it's not an accurate comparison.
> 
> 2. Nikon is leading the pack now, but it's always been a game of leap frog. Right now Nikon has come out with a bunch of new high-end cameras so odds are they will "go dark" for a bit. In the meantime Canon will release their latest and greatest.
> 
> 3. DR is certainly the buzz word these days isn't it? Heck most people didn't even know what it was until marketers made it a buzzword.
> 
> 4. DR is important until it isn't. What I mean is that there is a ton of photographers who really aren't concerned as they don't shoot in an environment where having a ton of DR is needed.
> 
> So yeah, I am defending Canon a bit, but really I am more trying to get folks to breathe a bit and realize it's not about gear as much as having fun.


You mean we didn't all start photography because its fun to debate about gear online? :headscratch: I know I did!!


----------



## cgw

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


----------



## ronlane

While I shoot Canon, I will admit that he D750 and D810 have made a big impression on me.

What I find most interesting and funny about this article is that they maxed out their credit cards to purchase 3 d750s and the glass to go with them and then they talk about "making" money on the switch. Not sure that I'm buying that one.


----------



## Derrel

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


----------



## fjrabon

my biggest frustration with Canon (and I was working in a Canon equipped studio earlier this year) is that their DR has fallen behind virtually every camera manufacturer and that they... just don't seem to care.  I don't get it.  My X100T has better dynamic range than a 7DII from what I've seen.  They seem to think that their shooters love their lenses so much that no difference in sensor technology will make a difference.  And this isn't a recent gap, Nikon has had a DR advantage for multiple years now.  The recent thing is that mirrorless makers like Fuji, Sony and Olympus are passing them, significantly.  As somebody else said, it's because Canon has neither substantially invested in a sensor upgrade, nor gone the Nikon route and outsourced sensor tech.  Nikon realized that they would get their asses kicked sensor wise, so instead they just paid sony to make sensors for them.

And sure, DR isn't the be all and end all.  But what, really, is a gigantor camera body good for if it isn't DR?  If you're not going to compete with DR, you might as well shoot something MUCH cheaper and not as bulky. (but that's a thread for another time)

Now, if we want to talk lenses, I moderately lean Canon, lens wise.  My 3 favorite lenses of all-time are all Canon.  But with the way Nikon (and perhaps more importantly Sigma and others) have closed the gap there, system wise, I worry about Canon.  

I still own a 7D, and I like it, but the stuff I can get away shooting with it, compared to what I can get away with on an old D7000 (not even a D7100) is like night and day.  Heck, the 7D's DR and low light is really, wildly outperformed by my X100T.  The D600 runs circles around the 5DIII I was using for work regularly.


----------



## fjrabon

ronlane said:


> While I shoot Canon, I will admit that he D750 and D810 have made a big impression on me.
> 
> What I find most interesting and funny about this article is that they maxed out their credit cards to purchase 3 d750s and the glass to go with them and then they talk about "making" money on the switch. Not sure that I'm buying that one.


From the read of it, they bought the Nikon gear first, and then went about slowly selling their Canon gear on ebay to pay off their credit cards, which makes sense given that they're busy wedding photographers and obviously couldn't sell off all their Canon gear first.


----------



## fjrabon

Derrel said:


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


yeah, I'm in an anti- system mode right now, but I did hit a small tinge of jealousy when I read that list.  Maybe coming back to this site is bad for me, haha.


----------



## runnah

Derrel said:


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




They certainly didn't scrimp on the equipment.

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


----------



## ronlane

fjrabon said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I shoot Canon, I will admit that he D750 and D810 have made a big impression on me.
> 
> What I find most interesting and funny about this article is that they maxed out their credit cards to purchase 3 d750s and the glass to go with them and then they talk about "making" money on the switch. Not sure that I'm buying that one.
> 
> 
> 
> From the read of it, they bought the Nikon gear first, and then went about slowly selling their Canon gear on ebay to pay off their credit cards, which makes sense given that they're busy wedding photographers and obviously couldn't sell off all their Canon gear first.
Click to expand...


I agree that they bought the stuff first and then sold off the canon stuff, but to say your are making money on it? You have to calculate that 23% interest from the credit card into that equation. Not even to mention that if this was their business, isn't part of the CODB calculating in replacement stuff? (I'm not saying that I could go out and buy a new system like this without putting it on a credit card or a business loan) Just doesn't seem smart to me.


----------



## Braineack

runnah said:


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



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

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


----------



## fjrabon

ronlane said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I shoot Canon, I will admit that he D750 and D810 have made a big impression on me.
> 
> What I find most interesting and funny about this article is that they maxed out their credit cards to purchase 3 d750s and the glass to go with them and then they talk about "making" money on the switch. Not sure that I'm buying that one.
> 
> 
> 
> From the read of it, they bought the Nikon gear first, and then went about slowly selling their Canon gear on ebay to pay off their credit cards, which makes sense given that they're busy wedding photographers and obviously couldn't sell off all their Canon gear first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that they bought the stuff first and then sold off the canon stuff, but to say your are making money on it? You have to calculate that 23% interest from the credit card into that equation. Not even to mention that if this was their business, isn't part of the CODB calculating in replacement stuff? (I'm not saying that I could go out and buy a new system like this without putting it on a credit card or a business loan) Just doesn't seem smart to me.
Click to expand...


I doubt they pay 23% interest on their cards if they operate a relatively successful photography business (as they seem to). Also it depends on how quickly they turned over their Canon gear.  I'd imagine they could have off loaded most of it within a month on ebay, which would allow them to pay their CCs off before the interest hit.  

And the last part of that bit was them calculating in that the Nikon gear would all be new, and thus allow them to need upgrades less soon.


----------



## fjrabon

Braineack said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tilt shifts are a bit unexpected. I assume for special effect and location shots. Seem like a pricy route for only a few shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been noting a trend in wedding photographers using them--they make interesting photos:
> 
> http://gleasonphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nebraskas-best-wedding-photographer_0025.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah, big time trend in wedding photography.  It's absolutely they "hot new" (that isn't all that new) trend.  One thing for sure, they give a look that can't really be had any other way that a lot of people really love.  To the point of if you're doing high volume wedding stuff, you borderline need one at this point.


----------



## Braineack

fjrabon said:


> lso it depends on how quickly they turned over their Canon gear.  I'd imagine they could have off loaded most of it within a month on ebay, which would allow them to pay their CCs off before the interest hit.



according to their for sale page, they only have three lens left and sold off a TON of stuff:



> *Canon 50 1.2 L – $1050
> Canon 85 1.2L II – $1450
> Canon 85 1.2L II – $1350
> Profoto Air Remote TTL for Canon – $365*
> 
> Canon 17mm ts/e f/4 – SOLD!
> Canon 45 2.8 ts-e – SOLD!
> Canon ST E3-RT – SOLD!
> Canon 5D Mark III – SOLD!
> Canon 100 2.8 macro (non-L) – SOLD!
> Canon 135 2.0 L – SOLD!
> MeiKe Remote Shutter Release – SOLD!
> Canon 24-70 2.8L II – SOLD!
> Sigma 35 1.4 Art – SOLD!
> Cybersync triggers and receivers – 3 sets, SOLD!
> Canon 70-200 2.8L II – SOLD!
> 3x Cheetah v860 flashes – SOLD!
> Canon 24 1.4L II – SOLD!
> Sigma 50 1.4 Art – SOLD!
> Canon 5D Mark III – SOLD!
> 2x Lexar FireWire 800 stackable Card Readers – SOLD!
> Canon 135 2.0 L – SOLD!
> Canon 5D Mark III – SOLD!
> Canon 1.4 Teleconverter – SOLD!
> Canon 35 1.4 L – SOLD!


----------



## Derrel

I figured the T-S lenses were to differentiate their work in on-line portfolios and maybe, their post-wedding blog posts. Real, in-camera T-S photos can have that funky "miniature effect" type of distorted focus plane that many people seem to like. And also, the 24mm T-S would be useful for some architectural type shots of churches and locations, and with a bit of forward tilt on the lens, the 24mm and 45mm would both be useful for effectively deeper depth of field for closer-range shots. I think a lot of today's wedding crowd really likes the various "lensy" looks.

My guess is that the 24 and 45 T-S would be very useful for the pre-wedding engagement sessions.


----------



## fjrabon

Derrel said:


> I figured the T-S lenses were to differentiate their work in on-line portfolios and maybe, their post-wedding blog posts. Real, in-camera T-S photos can have that funky "miniature effect" type of distorted focus plane that many people seem to like. And also, the 24mm T-S would be useful for some architectural type shots of churches and locations, and with a bit of forward tilt on the lens, the 24mm and 45mm would both be useful for effectively deeper depth of field for closer-range shots. I think a lot of today's wedding crowd really likes the various "lensy" looks.
> 
> My guess is that the 24 and 45 T-S would be very useful for the pre-wedding engagement sessions.


Yeah, I've seen them a lot with the miniature effects, but also to get a shot of a huge church front with the bride and groom coming out, where the Church building dominates the frame and the bride and groom are somewhat small.  It's a cool shot, that a TS really helps with


----------



## Derrel

Tilting the focus plane radically on photos of mundane objects like a single champagne flute, or the wedding rings, whatever, adds that interesting "lensy look" to what are otherwise, pretty mundane photos. adding drama to the place settings, the champagne glasses, whatever, it all adds to that overall differentiating of pro work versus Uncle Bob stuff. I have also started seeing the Tilt-Shift looks in outdoor fashion and adventure editorial work in magazines like GQ and Maxim,etc, and it REALLy is a neat way to isolate/emphasize/separate people who are posed within a landscape or setting. so, I totally get why they went with the two T-S Nikkors.

I thought that buying two 105/2's was...a mistake...I have one, I know what it can do, how it behaves...not all that useful,really.


----------



## runnah

Braineack said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tilt shifts are a bit unexpected. I assume for special effect and location shots. Seem like a pricy route for only a few shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been noting a trend in wedding photographers using them--they make interesting photos:
> 
> http://gleasonphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nebraskas-best-wedding-photographer_0025.jpg
Click to expand...



Nothing is in focus in that shot.


----------



## cgw

Derrel said:


> Tilting the focus plane radically on photos of mundane objects like a single champagne flute, or the wedding rings, whatever, adds that interesting "lensy look" to what are otherwise, pretty mundane photos. adding drama to the place settings, the champagne glasses, whatever, it all adds to that overall differentiating of pro work versus Uncle Bob stuff. I have also started seeing the Tilt-Shift looks in outdoor fashion and adventure editorial work in magazines like GQ and Maxim,etc, and it REALLy is a neat way to isolate/emphasize/separate people who are posed within a landscape or setting. so, I totally get why they went with the two T-S Nikkors.
> 
> I thought that buying two 105/2's was...a mistake...I have one, I know what it can do, how it behaves...not all that useful,really.



That's a lot of cheddar for 2 lenses whose "look" is getting threadbare fast in editorial work. TS was hot 5 years ago, not so much now. Maybe their clientele likes it.


----------



## photoguy99

The T/S lenses are pretty killer just as straight up wides, aren't they?

They used to be, anyways.


----------



## fjrabon

photoguy99 said:


> The T/S lenses are pretty killer just as straight up wides, aren't they?
> 
> They used to be, anyways.


Yeah, people these days often *just* use them for the "miniature effect" but that's really only using them at a fraction of their capability.


----------



## runnah

photoguy99 said:


> The T/S lenses are pretty killer just as straight up wides, aren't they?
> 
> They used to be, anyways.



Where they really shine is in architecture photos. Benefits of a wide angle with out all the distortion. This way you can get straight buildings with a wide angle. 

The "tilt" portion is a bit gimmicky for my tastes.


----------



## photoguy99

Sure, but a wedding photographer might buy them as top-notch wides with an extra feature they use sometimes.


----------



## runnah

photoguy99 said:


> Sure, but a wedding photographer might buy them as top-notch wides with an extra feature they use sometimes.




Sure but they aren't really suited for run and gun wedding situations. Heck I don't think they are really easily useable without a tripod.

The cheaper better option would be just to get a good wide angle prime that would have more stops.


----------



## Derrel

photoguy99 said:
			
		

> The T/S lenses are pretty killer just as straight up wides, aren't they?
> 
> They used to be, anyways.



Nikon Tilt-Shift Part 2 Comparing the 24mm 45mm and 85mm Ryan Brenizer NYC Wedding Photographer. Storyteller problem solver.
Gear Review Nikon 45mm f 2.8 PC-E Lens - Washington DC Wedding Photographers Sam Hurd

I know the 45mm is also a macro lens. And yes, these are high-quality lenses.


----------



## fjrabon

runnah said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but a wedding photographer might buy them as top-notch wides with an extra feature they use sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure but they aren't really suited for run and gun wedding situations. Heck I don't think they are really easily useable without a tripod.
> 
> The cheaper better option would be just to get a good wide angle prime that would have more stops.
Click to expand...

A lot of high end wedding photography has started demanding more architecture photography too.  A lot of which you can get away with on a different day (or earlier in the day) than the actual wedding.  People who are shelling out big bucks for photography are often also shelling out big bucks for a venue, and they want pictures of the venue itself often.

Edit: that being said, I am admittedly biased towards TS lenses.  I've always loved them, in all their idiosyncratic glory.


----------



## Braineack

runnah said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tilt shifts are a bit unexpected. I assume for special effect and location shots. Seem like a pricy route for only a few shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been noting a trend in wedding photographers using them--they make interesting photos:
> 
> http://gleasonphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nebraskas-best-wedding-photographer_0025.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is in focus in that shot.
Click to expand...



then here:

http://gleasonphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nebraskas-best-wedding-photographer_0013.jpg

http://gleasonphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nebraskas-best-wedding-photographer_0014.jpg

http://gleasonphoto.com/wp-content/...wedding-new-years-eve-omaha-nebraska_0025.jpg


----------



## JacaRanda

runnah said:


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


 
Blasphemy!  How could one possibly have fun using such inferior equipment?
Anyone that gets upset over this stuff needs to have some sensor knocked into them , take a break and get out and shoot more.


----------



## runnah

Braineack said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tilt shifts are a bit unexpected. I assume for special effect and location shots. Seem like a pricy route for only a few shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been noting a trend in wedding photographers using them--they make interesting photos:
> 
> http://gleasonphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nebraskas-best-wedding-photographer_0025.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is in focus in that shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then here:
> 
> http://gleasonphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nebraskas-best-wedding-photographer_0013.jpg
> 
> http://gleasonphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nebraskas-best-wedding-photographer_0014.jpg
> 
> http://gleasonphoto.com/wp-content/...wedding-new-years-eve-omaha-nebraska_0025.jpg
Click to expand...


Jeez I don't see anything there that couldn't be done with a cheaper lens and Photoshop. The lines in the two blue walls shots aren't even straight.


----------



## Braineack

Just happened to be the last set I viewed and noticed the use.  That's all.  They weren't using it to correct distortion but to throw everything out of focus.


----------



## runnah

Braineack said:


> Just happened to be the last set I viewed and noticed the use.  That's all.  They weren't using it to correct distortion but to throw everything out of focus.



You sir have failed. TS lenses will now be discontinued.


----------



## runnah

fjrabon said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but a wedding photographer might buy them as top-notch wides with an extra feature they use sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure but they aren't really suited for run and gun wedding situations. Heck I don't think they are really easily useable without a tripod.
> 
> The cheaper better option would be just to get a good wide angle prime that would have more stops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of high end wedding photography has started demanding more architecture photography too.  A lot of which you can get away with on a different day (or earlier in the day) than the actual wedding.  People who are shelling out big bucks for photography are often also shelling out big bucks for a venue, and they want pictures of the venue itself often.
> 
> Edit: that being said, I am admittedly biased towards TS lenses.  I've always loved them, in all their idiosyncratic glory.
Click to expand...


Honestly I doubt most couples would notice a perspective corrected photo. Most probably want the selective focus.


----------



## astroNikon

Derrel said:


> Tilting the focus plane radically on photos of mundane objects like a single champagne flute, or the wedding rings, whatever, adds that interesting "lensy look" to what are otherwise, pretty mundane photos. adding drama to the place settings, the champagne glasses, whatever, it all adds to that overall differentiating of pro work versus Uncle Bob stuff. I have also started seeing the Tilt-Shift looks in outdoor fashion and adventure editorial work in magazines like GQ and Maxim,etc, and it REALLy is a neat way to isolate/emphasize/separate people who are posed within a landscape or setting. so, I totally get why they went with the two T-S Nikkors.
> 
> I thought that buying two 105/2's was...a mistake...I have one, I know what it can do, how it behaves...not all that useful,really.


Rats, now I need a tilt-shift.  Maybe John will give me his when he converts soon to Canon!


----------



## Derrel

Step into the world of miniature with David Clapp


----------



## Life

@ Jaomul

I don't see a single wedding photo on your flickr, might I ask when you became a pro? 'nuff said. 

I like the blog and it's always nice to see someone making the switch


----------



## gsgary

cgw said:


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


There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film
Click to expand...

There are also lots of photographers ditching still shots all together and making more money shooting video.


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are also lots of photographers ditching still shots all together and making more money shooting video.
Click to expand...

I would never have or pay for a video of my wedding


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are also lots of photographers ditching still shots all together and making more money shooting video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never have or pay for a video of my wedding
Click to expand...

I would never pay for film.
I guess there's something for everyone.
Funny how that works


----------



## cgw

gsgary said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film
Click to expand...


Would be curious to see "lots" quantified since labs in my area have thinned to the point of near invisibility. Wedding shooters once kept them afloat when film ruled and the labs died when they switched to digital. That happened quite a few years ago.


----------



## gsgary

cgw said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would be curious to see "lots" quantified since labs in my area have thinned to the point of near invisibility. Wedding shooters once kept them afloat when film ruled and the labs died when they switched to digital. That happened quite a few years ago.
Click to expand...

We are talking UK where more people shoot film ands it's no problem getting top quality colour processing


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are also lots of photographers ditching still shots all together and making more money shooting video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never have or pay for a video of my wedding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never pay for film.
> 
> I guess there's something for everyone.
> Funny how that works
Click to expand...



This beats any digital capture Fine art film wedding photographer Scotland UK Europe

Film wedding photography UK and destination


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are also lots of photographers ditching still shots all together and making more money shooting video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never have or pay for a video of my wedding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never pay for film.
> 
> This beats any digital capture Fine art film wedding photographer Scotland UK Europe
> I guess there's something for everyone.
> Funny how that works
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


doubtful.
the new pentax MF or a hassy  with a digiback  will do this easily.
medium format digital cameras do just as well.
even better when you consider the better recovery options.
Technology is amazing.


----------



## Vtec44

Jose Villa and Sam Blake are two well known film wedding photographers.  They're not cheap.

Jose Villa Fine Art Wedding Photography

Samm Blake Photographer


----------



## gsgary

Vtec44 said:


> Jose Villa and Sam Blake are two well known film wedding photographers.  They're not cheap.


Quality isn't cheap and I bet they are fully booked


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are also lots of photographers ditching still shots all together and making more money shooting video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never have or pay for a video of my wedding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never pay for film.
> 
> This beats any digital capture Fine art film wedding photographer Scotland UK Europe
> I guess there's something for everyone.
> Funny how that works
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> doubtful.
> the new pentax MF or a hassy  with a digiback  will do this easily.
> medium format digital cameras do just as well.
> even better when you consider the better recovery options.
> Technology is amazing.
Click to expand...

Doesn't have the look of film


----------



## Vtec44

gsgary said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jose Villa and Sam Blake are two well known film wedding photographers.  They're not cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> Quality isn't cheap and I bet they are fully booked
Click to expand...


From what I've read, Jose Villa's fee starts at $15k and he's in very high demand.  I don't know about Sam Blake though.


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots of photographers ditching still shots all together and making more money shooting video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never have or pay for a video of my wedding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never pay for film.
> 
> This beats any digital capture Fine art film wedding photographer Scotland UK Europe
> I guess there's something for everyone.
> Funny how that works
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> doubtful.
> the new pentax MF or a hassy  with a digiback  will do this easily.
> medium format digital cameras do just as well.
> even better when you consider the better recovery options.
> Technology is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't have the look of film
Click to expand...


and thank goodness for that


----------



## gsgary

Vtec44 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jose Villa and Sam Blake are two well known film wedding photographers.  They're not cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> Quality isn't cheap and I bet they are fully booked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I've read, Jose Villa fee starts at $15k and he's in very high demand.  I don't know about Sam Blake though.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't pay that for some joey with a D750


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots of photographers ditching still shots all together and making more money shooting video.
> 
> 
> 
> I would never have or pay for a video of my wedding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never pay for film.
> 
> This beats any digital capture Fine art film wedding photographer Scotland UK Europe
> I guess there's something for everyone.
> Funny how that works
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would hate to be sucked into digital like you are
> 
> doubtful.
> the new pentax MF or a hassy  with a digiback  will do this easily.
> medium format digital cameras do just as well.
> even better when you consider the better recovery options.
> Technology is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't have the look of film
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and thank goodness for that
Click to expand...


----------



## Vtec44

I myself is transitioning to be a hybrid shooter.  There are a lot of pros and cons between digital and film, but highlights retention and skin tone are the main factors why I want to include film in what I do.  I love Kodak Portra series when I was in school.  Digital is amazing at shadow recover and is great for the reception portion of my work.


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jose Villa and Sam Blake are two well known film wedding photographers.  They're not cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> Quality isn't cheap and I bet they are fully booked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I've read, Jose Villa fee starts at $15k and he's in very high demand.  I don't know about Sam Blake though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't pay that for some joey with a D750
Click to expand...


Maybe, maybe not.
We're those shot with 35mm film?
I have seen wedding photographers get 10k for weddings shot on MF digital. Phase one, hassy digiback, Leica...
You don't have to shoot film to get that kind of money.


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jose Villa and Sam Blake are two well known film wedding photographers.  They're not cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> Quality isn't cheap and I bet they are fully booked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I've read, Jose Villa fee starts at $15k and he's in very high demand.  I don't know about Sam Blake though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't pay that for some joey with a D750
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.
> We're those shot with 35mm film?
> I have seen wedding photographers get 10k for weddings shot on MF digital. Phase one, hassy digiback, Leica...
> You don't have to shoot film to get that kind of money.
Click to expand...

But you do for the look


----------



## runnah

I only shoot film at arranged marriages as they are both a thing of the past.


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jose Villa and Sam Blake are two well known film wedding photographers.  They're not cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> Quality isn't cheap and I bet they are fully booked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I've read, Jose Villa fee starts at $15k and he's in very high demand.  I don't know about Sam Blake though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't pay that for some joey with a D750
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.
> We're those shot with 35mm film?
> I have seen wedding photographers get 10k for weddings shot on MF digital. Phase one, hassy digiback, Leica...
> You don't have to shoot film to get that kind of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you do for the look
Click to expand...

If you care about that look then sure.
Not everyone does.


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jose Villa and Sam Blake are two well known film wedding photographers.  They're not cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> Quality isn't cheap and I bet they are fully booked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I've read, Jose Villa fee starts at $15k and he's in very high demand.  I don't know about Sam Blake though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't pay that for some joey with a D750
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.
> We're those shot with 35mm film?
> I have seen wedding photographers get 10k for weddings shot on MF digital. Phase one, hassy digiback, Leica...
> You don't have to shoot film to get that kind of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you do for the look
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you care about that look then sure.
> Not everyone does.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quality isn't cheap and I bet they are fully booked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've read, Jose Villa fee starts at $15k and he's in very high demand.  I don't know about Sam Blake though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't pay that for some joey with a D750
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.
> We're those shot with 35mm film?
> I have seen wedding photographers get 10k for weddings shot on MF digital. Phase one, hassy digiback, Leica...
> You don't have to shoot film to get that kind of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you do for the look
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you care about that look then sure.
> Not everyone does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would be surprised
Click to expand...

So would you


----------



## Life

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are also lots of photographers ditching still shots all together and making more money shooting video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never have or pay for a video of my wedding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never pay for film.
> 
> I guess there's something for everyone.
> Funny how that works
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This beats any digital capture Fine art film wedding photographer Scotland UK Europe
> 
> Film wedding photography UK and destination
Click to expand...

Are you out of your mind? That does not beat any digital capture by an extremely long shot. Go on some photo sharing websites, such as 500px.com. Look for weddings. Rethink that horrendous comment.


----------



## gsgary

Life said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are also lots of photographers ditching still shots all together and making more money shooting video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never have or pay for a video of my wedding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never pay for film.
> 
> I guess there's something for everyone.
> Funny how that works
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This beats any digital capture Fine art film wedding photographer Scotland UK Europe
> 
> Film wedding photography UK and destination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you out of your mind? That does not beat any digital capture by an extremely long shot. Go on some photo sharing websites, such as 500px.com. Look for weddings. Rethink that horrendous comment.
Click to expand...

No way for me film looks better than digital


----------



## runnah

Has anyone debated the merits of film vs. digital?


----------



## Life

gsgary said:


> Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots shooting film for weddings and I know one who is earning more money by going back to film
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots of photographers ditching still shots all together and making more money shooting video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never have or pay for a video of my wedding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never pay for film.
> 
> I guess there's something for everyone.
> Funny how that works
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This beats any digital capture Fine art film wedding photographer Scotland UK Europe
> 
> Film wedding photography UK and destination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you out of your mind? That does not beat any digital capture by an extremely long shot. Go on some photo sharing websites, such as 500px.com. Look for weddings. Rethink that horrendous comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No way for me film looks better than digital
Click to expand...

That's for YOU. Not for the millions of photographers out there. My D7100 can create images just as sharp with better bokeh than the link you posted. Not to mention the grain which does not look good.


----------



## gsgary

Life said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are also lots of photographers ditching still shots all together and making more money shooting video.
> 
> 
> 
> I would never have or pay for a video of my wedding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never pay for film.
> 
> I guess there's something for everyone.
> Funny how that works
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This beats any digital capture Fine art film wedding photographer Scotland UK Europe
> 
> Film wedding photography UK and destination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you out of your mind? That does not beat any digital capture by an extremely long shot. Go on some photo sharing websites, such as 500px.com. Look for weddings. Rethink that horrendous comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No way for me film looks better than digital
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's for YOU. Not for the millions of photographers out there. My D7100 can create images just as sharp with better bokeh than the link you posted.
Click to expand...

And plastic looking its not all about sharpness and that over used word bokeh


----------



## Derrel

I think there is a subset of people getting married today who idealize film, and pictures being "shot on film". I think that shooting film really stands out today, especially among the younger set. I see it as a way to differentiate one's business and services from the vast majority. Shooting film has become "custom"; not the norm: exotic, different, something to be used as a sort of mark of distinction. It's like a custom-built knife...it's not an off-the-rack model, but a custom, one-of-a-kind thing. Sure, it does what factory made knives do, but using a custom knife brings a sense of pride, and the owner gets satisfaction from that.

If I were a wedding shooter looking to move UP, to the higher end, to those $10k to $15k weddings, I think moving to film would be one of the smarter decisions one could make as a way to have an almost iron-clad unique selling proposition in many smaller and medium-sized markets. There must be five million weekend warriors and small studios shooting on Canon 5D-II and 5D-III kits, with the same lens sets...

How many people are offering medium format rollfilm weddings?


----------



## runnah

Derrel said:


> I think there is a subset of people getting married today who idealize film, and pictures being "shot on film". I think that shooting film really stands out today, especially among the younger set. I see it as a way to differentiate one's business and services from the vast majority. Shooting film has become "custom"; not the norm: exotic, different, something to be used as a sort of *mark of distinction*. It's like a custom-built knife...it's not an off-the-rack model, but a custom, one-of-a-kind thing. Sure, it does what factory made knives do, but using a custom knife brings a sense of pride, and the owner gets satisfaction from that.



More like it gives the owner some to gloat about. I bet every time they show off their photos to someone they will have to remark how it was all shot on film.

I do agree that shooting film is a great way to get the suckers err...customers to cough up more dough.


----------



## pixmedic

If you have to brag it was shot on film just so they know, you failed.


----------



## Derrel

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a subset of people getting married today who idealize film, and pictures being "shot on film". I think that shooting film really stands out today, especially among the younger set. I see it as a way to differentiate one's business and services from the vast majority. Shooting film has become "custom"; not the norm: exotic, different, something to be used as a sort of *mark of distinction*. It's like a custom-built knife...it's not an off-the-rack model, but a custom, one-of-a-kind thing. Sure, it does what factory made knives do, but using a custom knife brings a sense of pride, and the owner gets satisfaction from that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like it gives the owner some to gloat about. I bet every time they show off their photos to someone they will have to remark how it was all shot on film.
> 
> I do agree that shooting film is a great way to get the suckers err...customers to cough up more dough.
Click to expand...


I actually should have written, "something to gloat about", but I tried to be more politically correct, but runnah, you are 110% right....something to gloat about is really what I was thinking about in my head. It's like the guy with the "Hand-done diamond-tuck interior!" in his truck....or the people with the, "hand-quarried Italian marble" kitchen countertops, and so on. And yes, they would be able to say, "*And these were all shot on film.*" I think that's actually a good selling point for the high-end wedding customer: if they book with Joe Filmby Studios, then they will have a FILM-based wedding, which verrry few others will be able to say.

Many people want something to help them justify spending a lot of money. I can understand how at the upper end of the market there would be a selling advantage to shooting film when everybody else is shooting digital.


----------



## Vtec44

Shooting weddings right with films require a lot more skills.   You have to be an exceptional photographer to do this right.  There is no checking the back of your LCD. lol  It is a status symbol to let your clients know that you ARE a true professional because no new photographers would attempt this, and do it consistently and correctly.

Also, the film style of today is nothing like your parent's wedding in film.


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> If you have to brag it was shot on film just so they know, you failed.


Who said anything about bragging,  I have had 4 couples ask me to shoot their wedding on B+W film in the last year because they prefer the look


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to brag it was shot on film just so they know, you failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about bragging,  I have had 4 couples ask me to shoot their wedding on B+W film in the last year because they prefer the look
Click to expand...

Who said I was talking about you?
Not everything around here is about you and your leicas you know.


----------



## Life

I like the number 4, in a year. lol. People have different ways of shooting and what they use to do so, I don't think any 1 of those ways is correct.


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to brag it was shot on film just so they know, you failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about bragging,  I have had 4 couples ask me to shoot their wedding on B+W film in the last year because they prefer the look
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said I was talking about you?
> Not everything around here is about you and your leicas you know.
Click to expand...

Has a raw nerve been hit and I never mentioned Leicas


----------



## gsgary

Life said:


> I like the number 4, in a year. lol. People have different ways of shooting and what they use to do so, I don't think any 1 of those ways is correct.


4 is a lot when you have never advertised or wanted to shoot weddings


----------



## Life

Actually you have mentioned Leicas. 4 is not a lot, in ANY situation, and they probably heard of you from a friend of a friend or they were personal friends to begin with.


----------



## bribrius

i switched to nikon for the lens selection. Really, that was the primary reason. when i found out i could put about anything on one from 1960 up i was sold. It is the only company far as i know that never changed mounts enough to limit lens selection.  And since i liked the idea of using a variety of lenses and years lenses and throwing about anything i could find on one that is why i really bought into nikon. I figured in the end i could have a lot more fun and save money with more lenses to play with.  Granted, some are not high quality. But instead of being stuck with a couple lenses i can just go find another one for fifty bucks and it is like having a new toy.


----------



## Vtec44

Life said:


> 4 is not a lot, in ANY situation



It's all perception.  Four is a lot to some people, not to others.  If I charge 20k per wedding, 4 is about right for a year    I'm shooting 4 weddings continuously in October over the course of 4 days.  That is A LOT.


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to brag it was shot on film just so they know, you failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about bragging,  I have had 4 couples ask me to shoot their wedding on B+W film in the last year because they prefer the look
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said I was talking about you?
> Not everything around here is about you and your leicas you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has a raw nerve been hit and I never mentioned Leicas
Click to expand...

Wait what?
You never ever miss a chance here to say you shoot with leicas. 
I don't blame you,  if I had them, and cared about film,  I would mention them in every post I made. 
Kinda like you do.


----------



## runnah

Life said:


> 4 is not a lot, in ANY situation




That's what _she_ said!


----------



## Life

@Vtec44 

True. Good luck on those weddings ^^. I went over your website and quite like your style


----------



## gsgary

Vtec44 said:


> Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4 is not a lot, in ANY situation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all perception.  Four is a lot to some people, not to others.  If I charge 20k per wedding, 4 is about right for a year    I'm shooting 4 weddings continuously in October over the course of 4 days.  That is A LOT.
Click to expand...

4 is a lot if you don't want to shoot weddings but if i did i would be shooting like i used to shoot events (printing on site) every weekend and i would set up a studio at the wedding and have my dye sub printer glowing red like it did at events


----------



## Life

Oh yeah I'm sure you "used" to do a lot. Some pro. pfft.


----------



## runnah

Life said:


> Oh yeah I'm sure you "used" to do a lot. Some pro. pfft.



One more like that and you're going to be taking a break.


----------



## Life

Sorry  In my poor deference he started it  If finger pointing is allowed


----------



## gsgary

Life said:


> Sorry  In my poor deference he started it [emoji14] If finger pointing is allowed [emoji14]


So you don't believe I used to shoot events


----------



## terri

The tone in some of these posts is quite combative.   Can we let some stuff ride, please?    

Let's keep things on topic.   Thanks!


----------



## pixmedic

terri said:


> The tone in some of these posts is quite combative.   Can we let some stuff ride, please?
> 
> Let's keep things on topic.   Thanks!


Ride ride ride, wont'cha let it ride


----------



## ratssass

...i like turtles


----------



## bribrius

B-A-C-O-N


----------



## runnah




----------



## JacaRanda

terri said:


> The tone in some of these posts is quite combative.   Can we let some stuff ride, please?
> 
> Let's keep things on topic.   Thanks!


 
Translation - The tone curve in some of these post processes is quite contrasty nasty.  STOP IT!


----------



## tecboy

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


----------



## pixmedic

tecboy said:


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



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


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't understand why these couples switched to Nikon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some people can afford to jump on every new "best" bandwagon.
Click to expand...

They call them Muppets


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't understand why these couples switched to Nikon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some people can afford to jump on every new "best" bandwagon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They call them Muppets
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Derrel

tecboy said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't understand why these couples switched to Nikon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some people can afford to jump on every new "best" bandwagon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They call them Muppets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If i could afford a Leica S2 I would have one.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't,  I would have an MP


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't understand why these couples switched to Nikon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some people can afford to jump on every new "best" bandwagon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They call them Muppets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If i could afford a Leica S2 I would have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't,  I would have an MP
Click to expand...


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


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't understand why these couples switched to Nikon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some people can afford to jump on every new "best" bandwagon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They call them Muppets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If i could afford a Leica S2 I would have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't,  I would have an MP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the MP is too plain and boring looking....
> i like the M2-R better.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't understand why these couples switched to Nikon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some people can afford to jump on every new "best" bandwagon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They call them Muppets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If i could afford a Leica S2 I would have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't,  I would have an MP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the MP is too plain and boring looking....
> i like the M2-R better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats just an M2 with easier M4 loading, what about an M4P 70 year anniversary
Click to expand...


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


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> some people can afford to jump on every new "best" bandwagon.
> 
> 
> 
> They call them Muppets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If i could afford a Leica S2 I would have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't,  I would have an MP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the MP is too plain and boring looking....
> i like the M2-R better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats just an M2 with easier M4 loading, what about an M4P 70 year anniversary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's nicer, but it's just a cheaper MR-2
Click to expand...

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


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> They call them Muppets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If i could afford a Leica S2 I would have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't,  I would have an MP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the MP is too plain and boring looking....
> i like the M2-R better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats just an M2 with easier M4 loading, what about an M4P 70 year anniversary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's nicer, but it's just a cheaper MR-2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not, it has different frame lines can take a motorwind
Click to expand...

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


----------



## gsgary

There is only 2500 like mine


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> There is only 2500 like mine




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

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

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


----------



## waday

pixmedic said:


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



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

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


----------



## Life

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


----------



## pixmedic

waday said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the S2 is digital...(Bad-Ass Digital too)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I go and look at this camera. Doth my eye deceive me?
> 
> This camera is listed as having an affordable price at a mere $25,999.99 on Amazon?
> 
> View attachment 96429
Click to expand...



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

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


----------



## waday

pixmedic said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the S2 is digital...(Bad-Ass Digital too)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I go and look at this camera. Doth my eye deceive me?
> 
> This camera is listed as having an affordable price at a mere $25,999.99 on Amazon?
> 
> View attachment 96429
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its all relative to how much you have.
> Porsche's are affordable.... compared to Bugatti's.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Braineack

waday said:


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



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


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only 2500 like mine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don't have to defend your precious.
> we all know how much  you adore your Leica mp4 70 year anniversary rangefinder.
> I get it. its a nice little camera. its very cute.
> It wouldn't matter to me if they only made 50 of them.
> I still like the MR-2 better.
> 
> It seems pretty much impossible to make any sort of statement about film photography without you bringing it up.
> i mean, here I am, with my blatantly obvious aversion to shooting film...._*trying*_ so very hard to find some common ground with you by mentioning a Leica I would really love to have, but I guess its not good enough because the S2 is digital...(Bad-Ass Digital too) so fine. I make a second attempt at bridging our camera preference gap by mentioning a film camera i really like, that also happens to be a Leica....And still all you can talk about is your MP4.
> 
> Maybe we should try alcohol.
> or is my 20 year Balvenie single malt not up to your standards?
> I also have a '94 Chateau Lafitte Rothschild  if you prefer wine....
> im not much of a beer drinker, but I do sometimes stock some Angry Orchard Cider...I could run out and grab some cold ones.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## W.Y.Photo

waday said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the S2 is digital...(Bad-Ass Digital too)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I go and look at this camera. Doth my eye deceive me?
> 
> This camera is listed as having an affordable price at a mere $25,999.99 on Amazon?
> 
> View attachment 96429
Click to expand...


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


----------



## tecboy

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


----------



## Braineack

tecboy said:


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



doubt it.

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


----------



## TonyHoffer

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


----------



## TonyHoffer

jaomul said:


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



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




jaomul said:


> I did read it. I do shoot Nikon. I would a lot of what they say is spot on. But it reads like a promo, throwing in a small "Canon is better here" for stuff that's probably not overly important.
> 
> They talk about underexoposing to save highlights and they are wedding shooters, but how much are they underexposing by, a stop or 4 stops. Any raw file can be pushed a stop or so if shot correctly at lowish iso. Anything more required is bad practice, understandable in landscape.
> 
> As I said, not disagreeing with it being put up, but it's a popcorn read



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

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



Forkie said:


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



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



runnah said:


> Couple points.
> 
> 1. Sure comparing a camera that came out this year to one that came out several years ago will yield better results. Not saying that the DR isn't better in Nikon, just saying it's not an accurate comparison.
> 
> 2. Nikon is leading the pack now, but it's always been a game of leap frog. Right now Nikon has come out with a bunch of new high-end cameras so odds are they will "go dark" for a bit. In the meantime Canon will release their latest and greatest.
> 
> 3. DR is certainly the buzz word these days isn't it? Heck most people didn't even know what it was until marketers made it a buzzword.
> 
> 4. DR is important until it isn't. What I mean is that there is a ton of photographers who really aren't concerned as they don't shoot in an environment where having a ton of DR is needed.
> 
> So yeah, I am defending Canon a bit, but really I am more trying to get folks to breathe a bit and realize it's not about gear as much as having fun.



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



cgw said:


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



cgw, You seem like a fun person :/

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

Embarrass myself? Wow.


----------



## Vtec44

TonyHoffer said:


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



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


----------



## tecboy

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


----------



## Braineack

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

using tapatalk.


----------



## TonyHoffer

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the gear list that he and his wife picked out was interesting. He wrote that they bought, "3 d750s, a 24 3.5 tilt shift, 24-70, 2 Sigma 35s, 45 tilt shift, 2 Sigma 50s, 60 macro, 85 1.4, 85 1.8, 2 105 f/2s, 70-200." Plus, they have the Cheetah flash system units. All in all, pretty solid setup with a lot of emphasis on higher-end glass in the focal lengths most people would want for events. Pretty nice array of lenses to use on the D750, or any other FX Nikon for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They certainly didn't scrimp on the equipment.
> 
> The tilt shifts are a bit unexpected. I assume for special effect and location shots. Seem like a pricy route for only a few shots.
Click to expand...


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

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



Braineack said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tilt shifts are a bit unexpected. I assume for special effect and location shots. Seem like a pricy route for only a few shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been noting a trend in wedding photographers using them--they make interesting photos:
> 
> http://gleasonphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nebraskas-best-wedding-photographer_0025.jpg
Click to expand...


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



Derrel said:


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


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


----------



## TonyHoffer

Vtec44 said:


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



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



tecboy said:


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



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



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


----------



## W.Y.Photo

TonyHoffer said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing with you posting this Braineack, but this could be an add done by Nikon fanboys who were somewhat familiar with Canon gear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey jaomul, Rest assured, we're not sponsored by either Nikon or Canon. We've spent the past 8 years happily shooting Canon. It was a huge decision for us to change (as I wrote in the article) and the d750 isn't perfect. It was the right decision for us at the time though, but for the images and financially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read it. I do shoot Nikon. I would a lot of what they say is spot on. But it reads like a promo, throwing in a small "Canon is better here" for stuff that's probably not overly important.
> 
> They talk about underexoposing to save highlights and they are wedding shooters, but how much are they underexposing by, a stop or 4 stops. Any raw file can be pushed a stop or so if shot correctly at lowish iso. Anything more required is bad practice, understandable in landscape.
> 
> As I said, not disagreeing with it being put up, but it's a popcorn read
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We wrote this to be a real-world article about what was important to us. It was written and posted because we had tons of photographers asking about the switch. Sorry that it wasn't helpful for you, but with all due respect, it wasn't written as a pixel-peeeper type review. It was just our thoughts.
> 
> Regarding underexposure, we tend to push our shadows a lot. With Canon, if an image was underexposed by a stop and then needed shadows pushed, there would be lots of shadow noise, even at low ISO. That's where it comes in handy for us.
> 
> 
> 
> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only wish I could read it...
> View attachment 96128
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry about that. It's a Chrome issue we've been dealing with.
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couple points.
> 
> 1. Sure comparing a camera that came out this year to one that came out several years ago will yield better results. Not saying that the DR isn't better in Nikon, just saying it's not an accurate comparison.
> 
> 2. Nikon is leading the pack now, but it's always been a game of leap frog. Right now Nikon has come out with a bunch of new high-end cameras so odds are they will "go dark" for a bit. In the meantime Canon will release their latest and greatest.
> 
> 3. DR is certainly the buzz word these days isn't it? Heck most people didn't even know what it was until marketers made it a buzzword.
> 
> 4. DR is important until it isn't. What I mean is that there is a ton of photographers who really aren't concerned as they don't shoot in an environment where having a ton of DR is needed.
> 
> So yeah, I am defending Canon a bit, but really I am more trying to get folks to breathe a bit and realize it's not about gear as much as having fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> runnah, Thanks for the thoughts. I totally agree with you on almost all points here. I addressed most of them in the article. Maybe DR is more important to us than to you and that's ok. As I said in the conclusion, I don't think Nikon (or the d750 specifically) is right for everyone. It just was for us.
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> cgw, You seem like a fun person :/
> 
> I hate to do this on my first posts on this forum, but this is an incredibly rude thing to say. I've been a full time photographer for 7 years now. My wife is too. We earn our living doing only photography and work our butts off every day of the year to do it. We've shot 40 weddings/year for the last 8 years. We shoot nearly 170 days per year with our wedding, portrait and commercial work. We have a full time studio manager, a full time associate photographer and another part time associate photographer. We shoot more than 99% of photographers I know and make a pretty good living doing it. Guess what? We ARE the few full-time wedding shooters.
> 
> Embarrass myself? Wow.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Life

@ TonyHoffer

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


----------



## TonyHoffer

Life said:


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



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


----------



## cgw

TonyHoffer said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing with you posting this Braineack, but this could be an add done by Nikon fanboys who were somewhat familiar with Canon gear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey jaomul, Rest assured, we're not sponsored by either Nikon or Canon. We've spent the past 8 years happily shooting Canon. It was a huge decision for us to change (as I wrote in the article) and the d750 isn't perfect. It was the right decision for us at the time though, but for the images and financially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read it. I do shoot Nikon. I would a lot of what they say is spot on. But it reads like a promo, throwing in a small "Canon is better here" for stuff that's probably not overly important.
> 
> They talk about underexoposing to save highlights and they are wedding shooters, but how much are they underexposing by, a stop or 4 stops. Any raw file can be pushed a stop or so if shot correctly at lowish iso. Anything more required is bad practice, understandable in landscape.
> 
> As I said, not disagreeing with it being put up, but it's a popcorn read
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We wrote this to be a real-world article about what was important to us. It was written and posted because we had tons of photographers asking about the switch. Sorry that it wasn't helpful for you, but with all due respect, it wasn't written as a pixel-peeeper type review. It was just our thoughts.
> 
> Regarding underexposure, we tend to push our shadows a lot. With Canon, if an image was underexposed by a stop and then needed shadows pushed, there would be lots of shadow noise, even at low ISO. That's where it comes in handy for us.
> 
> 
> 
> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only wish I could read it...
> View attachment 96128
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry about that. It's a Chrome issue we've been dealing with.
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couple points.
> 
> 1. Sure comparing a camera that came out this year to one that came out several years ago will yield better results. Not saying that the DR isn't better in Nikon, just saying it's not an accurate comparison.
> 
> 2. Nikon is leading the pack now, but it's always been a game of leap frog. Right now Nikon has come out with a bunch of new high-end cameras so odds are they will "go dark" for a bit. In the meantime Canon will release their latest and greatest.
> 
> 3. DR is certainly the buzz word these days isn't it? Heck most people didn't even know what it was until marketers made it a buzzword.
> 
> 4. DR is important until it isn't. What I mean is that there is a ton of photographers who really aren't concerned as they don't shoot in an environment where having a ton of DR is needed.
> 
> So yeah, I am defending Canon a bit, but really I am more trying to get folks to breathe a bit and realize it's not about gear as much as having fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> runnah, Thanks for the thoughts. I totally agree with you on almost all points here. I addressed most of them in the article. Maybe DR is more important to us than to you and that's ok. As I said in the conclusion, I don't think Nikon (or the d750 specifically) is right for everyone. It just was for us.
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> cgw, You seem like a fun person :/
> 
> I hate to do this on my first posts on this forum, but this is an incredibly rude thing to say. I've been a full time photographer for 7 years now. My wife is too. We earn our living doing only photography and work our butts off every day of the year to do it. We've shot 40 weddings/year for the last 8 years. We shoot nearly 170 days per year with our wedding, portrait and commercial work. We have a full time studio manager, a full time associate photographer and another part time associate photographer. We shoot more than 99% of photographers I know and make a pretty good living doing it. Guess what? We ARE the few full-time wedding shooters.
> 
> Embarrass myself? Wow.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Life

cgw said:


> TonyHoffer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing with you posting this Braineack, but this could be an add done by Nikon fanboys who were somewhat familiar with Canon gear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey jaomul, Rest assured, we're not sponsored by either Nikon or Canon. We've spent the past 8 years happily shooting Canon. It was a huge decision for us to change (as I wrote in the article) and the d750 isn't perfect. It was the right decision for us at the time though, but for the images and financially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read it. I do shoot Nikon. I would a lot of what they say is spot on. But it reads like a promo, throwing in a small "Canon is better here" for stuff that's probably not overly important.
> 
> They talk about underexoposing to save highlights and they are wedding shooters, but how much are they underexposing by, a stop or 4 stops. Any raw file can be pushed a stop or so if shot correctly at lowish iso. Anything more required is bad practice, understandable in landscape.
> 
> As I said, not disagreeing with it being put up, but it's a popcorn read
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We wrote this to be a real-world article about what was important to us. It was written and posted because we had tons of photographers asking about the switch. Sorry that it wasn't helpful for you, but with all due respect, it wasn't written as a pixel-peeeper type review. It was just our thoughts.
> 
> Regarding underexposure, we tend to push our shadows a lot. With Canon, if an image was underexposed by a stop and then needed shadows pushed, there would be lots of shadow noise, even at low ISO. That's where it comes in handy for us.
> 
> 
> 
> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only wish I could read it...
> View attachment 96128
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry about that. It's a Chrome issue we've been dealing with.
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couple points.
> 
> 1. Sure comparing a camera that came out this year to one that came out several years ago will yield better results. Not saying that the DR isn't better in Nikon, just saying it's not an accurate comparison.
> 
> 2. Nikon is leading the pack now, but it's always been a game of leap frog. Right now Nikon has come out with a bunch of new high-end cameras so odds are they will "go dark" for a bit. In the meantime Canon will release their latest and greatest.
> 
> 3. DR is certainly the buzz word these days isn't it? Heck most people didn't even know what it was until marketers made it a buzzword.
> 
> 4. DR is important until it isn't. What I mean is that there is a ton of photographers who really aren't concerned as they don't shoot in an environment where having a ton of DR is needed.
> 
> So yeah, I am defending Canon a bit, but really I am more trying to get folks to breathe a bit and realize it's not about gear as much as having fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> runnah, Thanks for the thoughts. I totally agree with you on almost all points here. I addressed most of them in the article. Maybe DR is more important to us than to you and that's ok. As I said in the conclusion, I don't think Nikon (or the d750 specifically) is right for everyone. It just was for us.
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The few surviving full-time wedding shooters I know are too busy marketing and actually _working_ to embarrass themselves writing self-regarding spew like this. Two out of three seem to shoot Canon, too. Doubt this will cost them much sleep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> cgw, You seem like a fun person :/
> 
> I hate to do this on my first posts on this forum, but this is an incredibly rude thing to say. I've been a full time photographer for 7 years now. My wife is too. We earn our living doing only photography and work our butts off every day of the year to do it. We've shot 40 weddings/year for the last 8 years. We shoot nearly 170 days per year with our wedding, portrait and commercial work. We have a full time studio manager, a full time associate photographer and another part time associate photographer. We shoot more than 99% of photographers I know and make a pretty good living doing it. Guess what? We ARE the few full-time wedding shooters.
> 
> Embarrass myself? Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you're here...giving self-promoting testimonials and pretending it matters what people on a forum think? Right.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## TonyHoffer

cgw said:


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



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

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


----------



## Vtec44

cgw said:


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




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

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


----------



## W.Y.Photo

Vtec44 said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're here...giving self-promoting testimonials and pretending it matters what people on a forum think? Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't say this often, but you're an idiot.
> 
> Why would an established wedding photographer promoting his photography services to a forum full of other photographers?  If this is where brides hang out, then all bets are off.  @TonyHoffer 's business is largely based on his reputation and integrity.  It could easily ruin his business if he lied about not being sponsored.  The wedding photography industry is a small one.  People will know.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## pixmedic

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


----------



## JTPhotography

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


----------



## gsgary

We will just have to see if they are as reliable as Canon, I used Canon for years and never had 1 fault


----------



## Derrel

JTPhotography said:
			
		

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



Yeah, well...so she's not using the traditional left-hand-under-lens-as-support method...but it does look like she has the eyepiece's rubber bumper jammed pretty hard against her eye orbit, and her nose is mashed into the LCD pretty firmly, so the camera's probably got decent stability...and the lens appears to be a short, fast L-prime (50/1.2 I think?)...as long as she's using a good SAFE shutter speed, her images probably came out fine. 2014-Behind-The-Scenes-050.jpg  I dunno...autofocusing lenses have made such handholding technique possible...and hell...if she's shooting at a speed like 1/800 she could *one-hand it while eating a sammich *and probably get away with it...I'm not quite ready to crucify her over how she holds a 50 on a preggo belly shot...I admit, the South Korean judge and the Canadian judge might knock her score down to an 8.7 for the compulsory portion of their scoring, but they marked her up in the artistic expression portion...


----------



## W.Y.Photo

Derrel said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going back to the original article, check out how she is holding the camera in that very first pic when shooting the pregnant girl in the blue dress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well...so she's not using the traditional left-hand-under-lens-as-support method...but it does look like she has the eyepiece's rubber bumper jammed pretty hard against her eye orbit, and her nose is mashed into the LCD pretty firmly, so the camera's probably got decent stability...and the lens appears to be a short, fast L-prime (50/1.2 I think?)...as long as she's using a good SAFE shutter speed, her images probably came out fine. 2014-Behind-The-Scenes-050.jpg  I dunno...autofocusing lenses have made such handholding technique possible...and hell...if she's shooting at a speed like 1/800 she could *one-hand it while eating a sammich *and probably get away with it...I'm not quite ready to crucify her over how she holds a 50 on a preggo belly shot...I admit, the South Korean judge and the Canadian judge might knock her score down to an 8.7 for the compulsory portion of their scoring, but they marked her up in the artistic expression portion...
Click to expand...


Agreed. I hold my camera like that all the time when I have small lenses on it. It actually increases your radius of movement so its faster to fine tune your composition.. Like increasing the sensitivity on a joystick in a video game... sure there's less stability... but that is coupled with faster movement.


----------



## tecboy

Where is Steve5D when we need him?


----------



## Maxim Photo Studio

It's a constant battle. Just wait 6 months and people will be talking about switching to Canon when the 5DMK4 comes out. Then wait another 6 months when Nikon comes out with D6 and everyone will be switching to Nikon again. It's a cycle. That is why it's not the camera but the photographer that makes the difference.


----------



## gsgary

I bought a Nikon Nikomat ftn with a 50f2 for £12 but I'm not switching from my Leicas


----------



## qleak

Derrel said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going back to the original article, check out how she is holding the camera in that very first pic when shooting the pregnant girl in the blue dress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well...so she's not using the traditional left-hand-under-lens-as-support method...but it does look like she has the eyepiece's rubber bumper jammed pretty hard against her eye orbit, and her nose is mashed into the LCD pretty firmly, so the camera's probably got decent stability...and the lens appears to be a short, fast L-prime (50/1.2 I think?)...as long as she's using a good SAFE shutter speed, her images probably came out fine. 2014-Behind-The-Scenes-050.jpg  I dunno...autofocusing lenses have made such handholding technique possible...and hell...if she's shooting at a speed like 1/800 she could *one-hand it while eating a sammich *and probably get away with it...I'm not quite ready to crucify her over how she holds a 50 on a preggo belly shot...I admit, the South Korean judge and the Canadian judge might knock her score down to an 8.7 for the compulsory portion of their scoring, but they marked her up in the artistic expression portion...
Click to expand...

Oh great now I'm imagining her trying to eat a sandwich while having her eye mashed into the eyepiece with her nose mashed against the lcd. That's talent for sure!


----------

