tbcass
Forum Pro
The color produced by the camera JPEG engine doesn't matter if you shoot RAW.
I agree.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Does the camera brand matter any more?
- Thread starter kmonroe99
- Start date
tbcass
Forum Pro
So, it matters emotionally but it does not matter from a practical standpoint. Brand loyalty has always been an emotional attachment whether cameras, cars, washing machines or anything. When that emotional attachment is strong people will come up with every excuse to confirm their beliefs even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. It's called cognitive dissonance. I stick with Sony because I am comfortable with their cameras, not because I think they are in any way better because they are not, and they produce cameras that best fit my needs.
Sam Bennett
Veteran Member
I'll add to this that the full workflow and how that's supported by mobile apps matters. So for me, I deliver quick pics for my marketing stakeholders so they can post to social media the night of the event. So being able to select photos, get them on to my phone for edits and to the client fluidly matters. I see my colleagues in the pit using Canon and Sony and they're sometimes dumbfounded on the speed of my workflow. Maybe it's just as good with those manufacturers and they don't know how to use it, but when I was evaluating Sony a few years ago, they didn't really have a good method for Rating/Selecting "as you go" to share with a mobile device, so it was a non-starter for me. Both OM System and Lumix make this relatively easy (although I have complaints with both).
--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett
tbcass
Forum Pro
Was the interface improved or were you getting more used to the Nikon way of doing things?
OldNikonFan2025
Well-known member
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 78
Like I said, to each their own. I would appreciate it if you didn't imply that my preferences are based merely on ignorance.
I had a Sony A850. I bought it because the only option to get more than 12 MP at that time from Nikon was way too expensive for me. The ergonomics of that camera was poor, and the lens selection was weak. When I had the chance to buy a D800 I was back with Nikon and appreciated the better AF system, the faster AF-S motors, the wider selection of lenses, and the familiar and well thought UI that I was accustomed to using.
Whatever works for you. You certainly haven't sold me on Olympus, or any other brand for that matter. I don't use mirrorless ILC, though I might consider a Z8 because it looks like the technology has matured and I might find its EVF tolerable.
No argument from me about that. I'm a Nikon fan; not a Nikon fanatic or "lover."
It matters to some more than to others, and for a multitude of reasons. Too many people are fanatical about their brand, or weirdly hostile to a particular brand. If my first camera had been a Canon 20D, I would probably be "OldCanonFan2025." I get your UI issues, it's something that's important to me too; I just don't share them – so again, to each their own.
OldNikonFan2025
Well-known member
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 78
Some of the relatively minor changes to the UI were not improvements, but because they were relatively minor I was able to adjust to them nearly seamlessly. Some of the changes to UI were to accommodate improved features (mostly having to do with AF implementation), and I welcomed those changes.
For all the reasons already posted, brand still matters, and always will.
But that may not be a single brand, depending on one's requirements. That is the situation I have found myself in since I converted to digital in 2009/10. The different horses/different courses approach works for me, but it has necessitated several brands. All of them are excellent, in my experience.
Given my satisfaction with what I have, and my age, I don't see myself buying any more gear. The idea now is to keep on using what I have.
One additional element. To state the obvious, no one wants to buy a camera or lens that is less than reliable, or turns out to have a very short service life.
Based on what I read on DPR, that does not appear to be an issue. Note: This conslusion is based on the general threads and some (but certainly not all) brand threads I do read.
I am open to evidence to the contrary, but from what I have read, reliability across brands appears to be consistent, so that brand is not a factor.
Note: There is another current thread running that does discuss equipment failures, with some extreme incidence of failures listed. There is also some evidence of humidity playing a role in such failures. I have not seen any posts for some time from Jon-in-Thailand (hope he still with us). He lives in an extremely humid tropic enviornment that has to be an ultimate test lab. But his Nikon D300s keep running. That level of reliability is impressive.
But that may not be a single brand, depending on one's requirements. That is the situation I have found myself in since I converted to digital in 2009/10. The different horses/different courses approach works for me, but it has necessitated several brands. All of them are excellent, in my experience.
Given my satisfaction with what I have, and my age, I don't see myself buying any more gear. The idea now is to keep on using what I have.
One additional element. To state the obvious, no one wants to buy a camera or lens that is less than reliable, or turns out to have a very short service life.
Based on what I read on DPR, that does not appear to be an issue. Note: This conslusion is based on the general threads and some (but certainly not all) brand threads I do read.
I am open to evidence to the contrary, but from what I have read, reliability across brands appears to be consistent, so that brand is not a factor.
Note: There is another current thread running that does discuss equipment failures, with some extreme incidence of failures listed. There is also some evidence of humidity playing a role in such failures. I have not seen any posts for some time from Jon-in-Thailand (hope he still with us). He lives in an extremely humid tropic enviornment that has to be an ultimate test lab. But his Nikon D300s keep running. That level of reliability is impressive.
john isaacs
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,436
- Solutions
- 22
- Reaction score
- 9,909
The implication is your assumption. But this is a discussion of camera brand. I gave my specific issues with Nikon, which is a camera brand that seems to be locked into a very limited UI. You may argue that point if you like.
In my case, I used Nikon frequently, especially for professional work. I used it for corporate head shots, events, weddings, and professional sports, and I also used it for wildlife for personal use. But the lack of RAW support with pre-release capture made their action cameras less desirable. The final straw, however, was when I was prepping for a wedding. Their custom settings implementation doesn't meet my needs, and I decided I was not going to keep trying to work around the limitations. That decision led me to dump everything: cameras, lenses, flashes, triggers, remotes, and anything Nikon specific. Three large camera bags full of gear, sold at the local camera store.
I doubt if they will fix the issues I have, so I will at some point look elsewhere.
OldNikonFan2025
Well-known member
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 78
Okay. I have configured my D500 and D850 to be nearly identical. I say nearly because there are niggles that result in "can't get there from here" configurations. In that regard I agree that Nikon has some limitations. That said, I find that I am happy with both camera's UI, I just wish I could make them both identical.
I don't dismiss your frustration, but wonder now what "elsewhere" actually means.
TZ99. Missing viewfinder. Missing Panasonic.
Can somebody explain to me why Panasonic would not want to mention its company name - (not even once) in this video? Panasonic's branding 'strategy' has to be the worst I have ever seen by any camera manufacturer (OM SYSTEM comes close), and it started with not placing Panasonic on the front...
tbcass
Forum Pro
I'm not saying you are wrong but using a camera from 15 years ago as a basis of comparison doesn't prove your point.
Hike Pics
Senior Member
Given all the different systems I have, not a bit.
Sam Bennett
Veteran Member
I think ultimately the answer to this for most people is "no". The fact is that at this point, with the maturity of the mirrorless market it is very hard to buy a bad camera. You can't really point to any particular manufacturer and say that they're really leading the pack over anyone else. They all have pretty good image quality, pretty good video, pretty good auto-focus, etc.
The autofocus situation is especially interesting since both Sony and Canon clearly no longer see good AF as a differentiator, but table stakes for all of their cameras regardless of price point.
It's a good time to be a photographer!
Redhenry
Senior Member
And, judging by the obsessive attention to tiny details exhibited in some threads on DPReview, there are plenty of people around for whom those details and differences matter a lot. As a photographer who has tried RAW processing several times and can’t be bothered with it, and who now finds that a smartphone gives results which are good enough, I am at the other end of the scale from the detail people but we all find enjoyment in making pictures and the devices we make them with.
akustykmagmanetpl
Senior Member
to me it's about lens mount and how it works with all the lenses I want to own
OldNikonFan2025
Well-known member
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 78
Okay. Just to be clear, the above excerpt wasn't intended to be about me bashing Sony; it was intended to be about me defending my personal experience with Nikon's UI and feature implementation not being based on only knowing Nikon.
As I wrote elsewhere here, I'm not dismissing John's issues, but his negative experience with Nikon's UI and feature implementation doesn't make my positive experience with Nikon's UI (and feature implementation) with five different versions of one particular body type (D200 through D850) any less valid.
Ironically, we both are arguing that the camera brand does matter, but coming to that from opposite directions. I'm still wondering what camera brand John prefers since all he has written here is that he has dumped Nikon over this issue.
upptick
Leading Member
- Messages
- 548
- Reaction score
- 511
Arguing over camera brands is a bit like arguing over whether Ford or Chevy or Dodge builds the best pickup.
Having said that, brand does matter some depending on your needs. For example, if you need the most reliable autofocus, most people would say go with Sony (although the other brands have largely caught up).
If you dislike processing and want to use JPEGs straight out of the camera, Fuji seems to offer more than the others with their film simulations (but you can mostly duplicate those in the picture profile settings in Sony and Nikon at least).
If you're really into macro, micro 4/3 with its inherently greater depth of field and in-camera focus stacking feature (in Olympus at least), might be the way to go.
And I wish the term "color science" would disappear from the lexicon because when people use it they virtually always are not talking about true scientific principles like the wavelength associated with particular colors in the visible spectrum but are instead talking about the subjective rendition of color that is manipulated by proprietary formulae developed by particular manufacturers. Moreover, if you process your photos from RAW format, a camera's "color science" is at least irrelevant if not actually meaningless.
Having said that, brand does matter some depending on your needs. For example, if you need the most reliable autofocus, most people would say go with Sony (although the other brands have largely caught up).
If you dislike processing and want to use JPEGs straight out of the camera, Fuji seems to offer more than the others with their film simulations (but you can mostly duplicate those in the picture profile settings in Sony and Nikon at least).
If you're really into macro, micro 4/3 with its inherently greater depth of field and in-camera focus stacking feature (in Olympus at least), might be the way to go.
And I wish the term "color science" would disappear from the lexicon because when people use it they virtually always are not talking about true scientific principles like the wavelength associated with particular colors in the visible spectrum but are instead talking about the subjective rendition of color that is manipulated by proprietary formulae developed by particular manufacturers. Moreover, if you process your photos from RAW format, a camera's "color science" is at least irrelevant if not actually meaningless.
The tech has gotten so good these days that pretty much all cameras are capable of really great IQ. Most brands have a range of cameras that will work for a range of subject matter. I would argue that even the IQ matters less than it had in the past. of course a medium format camera is going to have much better IQ than an m43 one, but the IQ of even the m43 is so good that unless your shooting requires some kind of super great dynamic range, you're shooting action in very low light or making really large prints, the differences are likely to be really subtle. The differences then are as much about the ergonomics, the interface, physical controls, the aesthetics and in some cases, a few specific features, as anything more consequential, but overall I think that for most people, there isn't going to be one specific brand that is necessary for what they do, even if we all may have our preferences.
--
my flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
--
my flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
Last edited:
There could be multiple reasons.
For example one has several lenses that fits a brand but not the other. One may like a particular lens, say a Canon 200-800mm so he is not going to buy a Fuji, one likes the look or layout use in a brand or even , as in my case now, simply because one likes the history of that brand.
(when I was selling cameras I did change from one brand to another and even used different brands simultaneously but that was because I wanted a better hands on knowledge...).
Last edited:
It could be argued that if you are buying a pick-up you probably aren't terribly concerned for some features that car buyers consider important. However that's not the point. In terms of cars the most uncomfortable seats and worst dashboard prize goes to Ford. The equivalent for cameras goes to the Pentax ME Super. Both experiences would stop me from buying those particular brands.
Whilst I agree that all cameras produce good images it is handling that matters now. Canon and Nikon cameras handle differently but are in many respects similar choosing between a Canon R1 and a Nikon Z9 one might consider sensor resolution but handling the two would probably reveal the differences better. One might add the Olympus OM-D EM1 to that comparison, it has much the same form and size but is somewhat lighter. What matters most to the specific user will determine which is ultimately purchased.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum