Did Nikon screw up?

Started May 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
Chad Gladstone
Senior MemberPosts: 2,608Gear list
Like?
Re: Attention Chad Re: Question for Subprime Canon or Nikon?
In reply to SubPrime, May 28, 2013

SubPrime wrote:

Chad Gladstone wrote:

It appears that from the prevailing opinions you have advocated recently, you shoot both a D800 and a Canon 5DmkIII and either own or have access to various lenses from both brand and are beginning an exodus (as you claim many other photographers here are as well) from Nikon to the Canon brand or are dabbling with the idea and may yet continue the futile exercise to remain with Nikon, notwithstanding your belief that the latter will be eradicated by Canon and succeed in DSLR world domination imminently and with impunity.  Is this correct?

I further gather from your collective posts that are basing that decision because of your strong preference for some particularly outstanding Canon lenses including the 17 TSE, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 f/2 (circa 2004), 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 (but it is not entirely clear whether you own or use any of the aforementioned optics).  Is that correct?  Without delving into the merits of the claimed superiority, nor attempted to explain why you feel so strongly that Nikon has no demonstrable roadmap for you, why are you so stubbornly clinging to the Nikon forums extolling these virtues and vastly superior Canon products at infinitum?

No one will think less of you if you just have the temerity to abandon the Nikon platform and switch to Canon.  Having to straddle the fence and bifurcate resources seems tantamount to subjecting yourself to the furthest recesses of hell.  It is even more consternating to a casual observer when perusing your posted gallery images (that appear to be a haphazard collection of challenging shots in less than ideal lighting, purely for some instructional purposes).  This is in no way an attempt to criticize the gallery for what it is, or even venture to guess why the images were uploaded at all.  However, I just don't have the slightest clue why a professional photographer (as you have shown with a firm grasp on the handling and performance capabilities of both systems and a technical understanding of how such technical limits would impair or restrict the utility in capturing whatever form of imagery conceivable), would tie up liquidity in such depreciating consumables?  Is it just to formulate some appearance of being an authoritative reference?  Do you have some sort of vested interest and receive some sort of compensation from accessing both systems that would be foregone by electing to concentrate your resources in a single brand?  Or are you just conflicted, well heeled and fancy sporting the latest gear without concern for appearance or sunk costs?

Again, this is not some sort of interrogation and whatever your intentions are for taking such a seemingly horizontal approach to photography is well beyond the scope of my questions.  My inquiry is intended only to realize why someone would want to straddle such an fence.  Having shot extensively with both systems, I will readily acknowledge the respective strengths and weakness of both/either, but to elect to do both simultaneously, for me, it tantamount to as Dante would say, “[T]he hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

While this is far from a moral imperative, the quote resonates with me for anyone who is intentionally subjecting themselves to remain neutral and deal with the idiosyncratic nature of both systems, that are poised, at every conceivable opportunity, to frustrate anyone who would attempt to effectively and simultaneously execute both systems with any level of competence.  I would be most pleased if you would indulge my inquiry.

If I was similarly situated as you appear to be, I would be invested in one or the other and used the additional disposable income to fill the remaining gaps in my lens line up.  $3500 or so goes a long way in funding one of the venerable 300 f/2.8's.

Of course there is a chance this post will get lost in the myriad of posts in this thread, perhaps it may be more effective to allow you the opportunity to start a new thread.  If I had the disposition, I suppose this information may have been apparent if I had some context from your previous posting history, but I neither have the wherewithal or the mentality to piece together the curious persona who has the capacity to channel the resources into a complementary system, but feels compelled to refrain to executing such a plan.  A casual observer may hazard to suggest that failing to do so lacks sense and defies rational explanation.  Of course, I such there is one and it is just not readily apparent from the series of posts that I have observed.

-- hide signature --

Chad Gladstone

Chad,

I am not thinking of abandoning Nikon.  I ended up with a 5D3 because I purchased a 5D2 a few  years ago, ironically because I was fed up with waiting for Nikon to release an affordable high res body.  A local photo store was moving and I got an amazing deal on a 5D2 and an 851.2. Admittedly, the need for more pixels was based on desire more than necessity.

I picked up a few more lenses along the way, so upgrading to the 5D3 was a no brainer, especially when it became apparent the D800 was not going to be a general purpose workhorse like the D700.

If anything, owning both cameras has given me a greater appreciation of what an amazing achievement the D800 is.  As I said to the OP, the exhilaration I get from the IQ offered by the D800 is unmatched by anything Canon has to offer.

I feel that I have a greater appreciation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of both than most people who post comparisons, so it seems logical to offer my opinion and it's hard to watch false statements going unchallenged.

why are you so stubbornly clinging to the Nikon forums extolling these virtues and vastly superior Canon products at infinitum?

There's no stubbornness involved, and I don't all consider Canon products to be superior.

I would direct you to this post, which was my first response to the OP, in which I refute the false claims he has made about his perceived shortcomings of the D800.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51514722

No one will think less of you if you just have the temerity to abandon the Nikon platform and switch to Canon.

Thank you for your reassurance, but I am not the least bit concerned with seeking anyone's approval. The images of my DP gallery were only ever intended to demonstrate a point I was trying to make in a particular discussion.

I don't make my living from photography, though I make enough money to justify my investment.  Sometimes it makes more sense to hold on to something that selling it, and if I were to be honest, I like to horde camera gear. I have a large investment in Nikon glass and I have no intention of selling it.

In any case, many working pros have money tied up in all manner of equipment.  It's not unusual for fashion photographer to have a MF system as well as a 35 mm DSLR system, not to mention the small fortune they invest in strobes.

Do you have some sort of vested interest and receive some sort of compensation from accessing both systems that would be foregone by electing to concentrate your resources in a single brand?

That's a very good question.  For the time being I don't incur any nett liability from having both systems, and given that their strengths are complimentary, the benefits outweigh the costs.

For example.  Until recently, the photographic assignments I've had involved working solo.   I was then approached by a local photographer to work under his company as a contracted photographer or a second photographer.  He's got more work than he can handle so he bought me on board. He's a Canon guy and under the terms of our working agreement, I provide him with the raw files.  He wants control of the PP and final look and it wouldn't be practical for me to hand him Nikon files.

So the question becomes, why hold on to the Nikon gear?  I prefer it and continue to use it for my own assignments. It's not entirely logical, but I have never been hard nosed about my gear.

Or are you just conflicted, well heeled and fancy sporting the latest gear without concern for appearance or sunk costs?

If  I were to be honest, there is some truth to that too, though as I said, the costs are accounted for.

My inquiry is intended only to realize why someone would want to straddle such an fence.

To be honest, I have a great regard for both systems and I would hate to chose between them.

I haven't had to many issues with switching between systems.  I tend to shoot in manual mode a lot of the time, which I think eliminates a lot of the complexity that comes with relying on aperture or shutter priority. That leaves the AF systems, which again, I tend to use in one mode most of the time.

If I was similarly situated as you appear to be, I would be invested in one or the other and used the additional disposable income to fill the remaining gaps in my lens line up.  $3500 or so goes a long way in funding one of the venerable 300 f/2.8's.

I have certainly given that consideration, but as lovely as the 300 2.8 is, I cannot justify it based on the little use I would get from it.  What I do has never required more than the reach a 70-200 gives me. A 200 f2 would be lovely, and I might well pull the trigger on it in the near future.

Which one? The Nikon or the Canon?

-- hide signature --

Chad Gladstone

 Chad Gladstone's gear list:Chad Gladstone's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow