[gkrishn]

Originally Posted by clevermax

While all the professional photographers (Mostly those who shoot at marriages, functions, meetings etc) use Nikons, most of the the amature photographers and hobbyists use Canon. I keep wondering why.

One of my distant distant cousin is a marriage photographer. The reason he gave was, the turn around time (atleast in bangalore) for a repair work is pretty quick for nikon.

[SkyWalker]

@Samurai - Bingo!

One of the hilarious experience i had was i was analyzing EXIFs of some wedding snaps for "insider" info. Not even one where P/A/S/M was used. Almost all snaps were in Auto, except for the group photos, which he took in "landscape mode"! I wanted to ask him what his understanding of "landscape" was, but never met that dude again.

[praJEEP]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Most of the the amature photographers and hobbyists use Canon. I keep wondering why.

But this amature Ajay Rajgarhia is one of them who uses nikon. simply amazing shots.

Ajay Rajgarhia, Fine Art Photography

Ajay rajgarhia on NDTV GOOD TIMES.

Capturing blue with Ajay Rajgarhia

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by clevermax

While all the professional photographers (Mostly those who shoot at marriages, functions, meetings etc) use Nikons, most of the the amature photographers and hobbyists use Canon. I keep wondering why.

These guys seriously are "Experts" in messing things up. I went to a friend's wedding last month which had one of these "Experts" roaming around with a D300 and a bagful of lenses asking the bride and groom to pose for hours at length.

The output which I saw later of this expert's work was shocking to say the least. Every single image had poor composition, poor color, poor metering. I could go on and on.

I personally took a few random photographs every now and then without putting in any real effort and finally when I showed the output of that, my friend was like these images are so much nicer and natural. Wish his dad had given the 25k he gave to the "Expert" photographer to me instead .

[clevermax]

Yes, I agree that most of the 'wedding' photographers are bad and they shoot in auto mode with real nice equipment. But I have seen experts as well - at least two of them - who shoot for marriages and also do freelancing, real good experts in digital photography.

I saw one guy shooting with a D200 at a marriage function, where I also happened to be a photographer with my DSLR. He was struggling to change the white balance every now and then, and the reason he told was that they have to adjust the 'white' everytime when the videographer turns on and turns off their bright yellow light.

I was taking pics in RAW mode, so that I don't have to worry about the white balance at that point of time! He didn't know that. And I've came to know that most of them never ever shot a picture in RAW!

You tell them how you create HDRs from different images, about 8 bits, 16, 32 bit images (I am still learning how to create decent HDRs), and they'll tell you how to achieve that with a single 8bit jpeg using some cheap editing tricks in CS2

[kpzen]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

Wish his dad had given the 25k he gave to the "Expert" photographer to me instead

To find u take photos of bride and groom in the parking lot along side the Cedia ??

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by clevermax

While all the professional photographers (Mostly those who shoot at marriages, functions, meetings etc) use Nikons, most of the the amature photographers and hobbyists use Canon. I keep wondering why.

Not really. In the 90s there was mass defection among pros to Canon because the EOS mount offered better AF than anything Nikon could muster with its policy of sticking by the F-mount. That was the point Nikon lost it's supremacy. The first to switch were sports photographers who really needed the fast AF. Then went photo-journalists and others. Nikon started selling equivalent lens foucussing tech almost a decade later. The reason marriage/function photographers may have stayed with Nikon is because fast AF didn't matter to them and they were familiar with the Nikon system. But I know a lot of pros who switched to Canon and have never looked back. In fact Canon users are the majority.

Originally Posted by Samurai

This is one case where hobbyists are lot more experts than professionals, at least in the Indian scene. I have spoken to few of these guys and soon realised that they are mostly ignorant about their equipment. They still carry their habits from film SLRs. The EXIF data of the photos from my B-I-L's wedding was an eye-opener and shocking.

There is a reason for that. Amateurs have time to tinker with things. Pros want to get out there, start shooting and earn back their investment in new equipment ASAP. I knew a pro who shot in P or program mode on Nikon AF film bodies, because the P mode very rarely went wrong and it was more important to focus on the image and composition. This guy took very nice pictures. I was shocked when he told me he doesn't care about settings. I couldn't argue with his logic though - getting the shot was key and everything else secondary. Modern cameras, he said, free up the photographer to focus on other things like getting lighting and composition right.

Originally Posted by clevermax

I saw one guy shooting with a D200 at a marriage function, where I also happened to be a photographer with my DSLR. He was struggling to change the white balance every now and then, and the reason he told was that they have to adjust the 'white' everytime when the videographer turns on and turns off their bright yellow light.

I was taking pics in RAW mode, so that I don't have to worry about the white balance at that point of time! He didn't know that. And I've came to know that most of them never ever shot a picture in RAW!

They are different ways of doing the same thing. Tinker with the white balance before taking the shot and it reduces the time you spend in post-processing. Shoot in RAW and spend more time in post-processing. Choosing which is the better method depends on the time you have and memory constraints both in the camera and your post-processing rig.
Personally, I feel shooting RAW really increases workflow.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by StarScream

I couldn't argue with his logic though - getting the shot was key and everything else secondary. Modern cameras, he said, free up the photographer to focus on other things like getting lighting and composition right.

There are wedding photographers who can't even get composition and lighting right. My BIL's wedding shots were a travesty. Most shots were over-exposed, something these guys love to do because showing the faces whiter/fairer than real makes clients happy. Often focus was on the wrong object. When the couple were exchanging garlands, he framed the shot with bride and groom on each side, but he focussed on middle, the couple were OOF.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by Samurai

There are wedding photographers who can't even get composition and lighting right. My BIL's wedding shots were a travesty. Most shots were over-exposed, something these guys love to do because showing the faces whiter/fairer than real makes clients happy. Often focus was on the wrong object. When the couple were exchanging garlands, he framed the shot with bride and groom on each side, but he focussed on middle, the couple were OOF.

There are always exceptional cases and Im sure the pictures were awful. My comments were more general in nature - about why pros don't care for settings.

[Shan2nu]

There is a reason for that. Amateurs have time to tinker with things. Pros want to get out there, start shooting and earn back their investment in new equipment ASAP. I knew a pro who shot in P or program mode on Nikon AF film bodies, because the P mode very rarely went wrong and it was more important to focus on the image and composition. This guy took very nice pictures. I was shocked when he told me he doesn't care about settings. I couldn't argue with his logic though - getting the shot was key and everything else secondary. Modern cameras, he said, free up the photographer to focus on other things like getting lighting and composition right.

These days almost all commercial photos are worked on using Photoshop, so apart from focus and a bit of exposure, other settings on the cam take a back seat.

What they show you is not what is, but what they want you to see.

Heres a nice vid :

YouTube - How to transform an ordinary woman to a top model

Shan2nu

[kuttapan]

Originally Posted by Tejas@perioimpl

Yes, this may land up being a canon nikon war. I've used a nikon SLR in the past and now have a Canon DSLR.

The advantage with nikon is that you can use your earlier old nikon lenses in the new DSLR. Not possible in canon.

Any other points i'll keep to myself, lest i start WWIII.

Please state your points, I would like to know. Canoners, please ignore Nikon comments and Nikoners vice versa so that we dont have a war. Let's not discuss about the so called professionals, I am looking at reading t-Bhpian's experiences with each brand. I am sure you must have compared when making your purchase decision. Would like to know what influenced your decision and if you felt you made a wrong choice afterwards.

Someone who used both brands would be the best person to explain the differences, I guess.

Ken Rockwell says Nikons usually get out of his way as the adjustments are easier, while Canons have slightly more complicated menus/adjustments. I would like to know from regular Canon users if they find it cumbersome to make adjustments, or if it is just a matter of getting used to the camera.

One thing I find with Nikons is most of the lenses available(NIKKOR) are DX format, meaning it goes useless if one has plans to upgrade to full frame in future. Is this observation true for Canon's too? I wish Rudraji could offer his comments on Canon and why he picked Canon.

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by kuttapan

One thing I find with Nikons is most of the lenses available(NIKKOR) are DX format, meaning it goes useless if one has plans to upgrade to full frame in future. Is this observation true for Canon's too? I wish Rudraji could offer his comments on Canon and why he picked Canon.

Only the canon EF-S lenses are digital only. EF lenses will work on Film/APS-C and Full frame digital.

[deep_bang]

Hi all,
I am reading this thread closely. I think i am going to take the plunge some time soon. My head is still not convinced of it, but i am at a point where i can only find out if i really want a SLR by actually buying it. Well, thats a different point altogether, but right now i am just reading up on SLR's so, when i am ready to buy one, i am all set with the info. Also, i am looking for an entry level SLR only here. Why not a high end point and shoot? I don't know - please don't ask me that question right now - i don't have an answer.

Firstly, everyone here suggests that lenses are more important. So what do i have to look for in a lens.
1. Should i look for the brand?
2. It appears that not all lens may work with digital and analog cameras. But this is not a concern as i am never going to use a film camera.
3. VR lens: Read that this the Image stabilization equivalent for SLR's. Somehow VR's seem to be associated with Nikon usually - so it is a Nikon branded product? If so, what should i look for in a Canon lens for Image stabilization.
Also, how important is image stabilization? On my point and shoot, it helps quite a bit, but people who have used SLR's may please comment more on this.
4. I saw a deal for: Canon EOS Rebel XS (a.k.a. 1000D) SLR Digital Camera Kit (Silver) with 18-55mm IS Lens & 75-300mm III Lens for about $500 in the US.
Is this a good deal? It seemed to be so, since i had never come across anything sub $500 with both lenses. However, there has to be a catch somewhere. What does the 75 - 300mm III lens signify. The photo showed it to be a canon lens and also from a reputed online site.
5. Any other thoughts or suggestions?

[kuttapan]

Originally Posted by deep_bang

Hi all,
I am reading this thread closely. I think i am going to take the plunge some time soon. My head is still not convinced of it, but i am at a point where i can only find out if i really want a SLR by actually buying it. Well, thats a different point altogether, but right now i am just reading up on SLR's so, when i am ready to buy one, i am all set with the info. Also, i am looking for an entry level SLR only here. Why not a high end point and shoot? I don't know - please don't ask me that question right now - i don't have an answer.

I am in the same boat as you. Only that the head is convinced, pocket is not. I think it makes sense to buy a DSLR, even if entry level, rather than a point and shoot, if you are seriously interested in photography. If you are only interested in good looking pics which the PS can deliver, then they are the way to go.

Firstly, everyone here suggests that lenses are more important. So what do i have to look for in a lens.
1. Should i look for the brand?

Canon, Nikon, Olympus etc make the best lenses and cameras. Tokina, Tamron, Sigma etc have third party lenses, while cheaper, whose performance may be comparable to the camera brand lenses. it all depends on which particular lens you choose.

2. It appears that not all lens may work with digital and analog cameras. But this is not a concern as i am never going to use a film camera.

Some features may not be available if you use old lenses(mainly autofocus) with new cameras, but almost all Nikon lenses are compatible. The compatibility guide tells you which feature is available/unavailable.

3. VR lens: Read that this the Image stabilization equivalent for SLR's. Somehow VR's seem to be associated with Nikon usually - so it is a Nikon branded product? If so, what should i look for in a Canon lens for Image stabilization.
Also, how important is image stabilization? On my point and shoot, it helps quite a bit, but people who have used SLR's may please comment more on this.

VR is a term used by Nikon, Canon uses IS. It allows you to take images without a tripod, if you chose to. It really helps if you have unsteady hands. I would always choose a VR lens.

4. I saw a deal for: Canon EOS Rebel XS (a.k.a. 1000D) SLR Digital Camera Kit (Silver) with 18-55mm IS Lens & 75-300mm III Lens for about $500 in the US.
Is this a good deal? It seemed to be so, since i had never come across anything sub $500 with both lenses. However, there has to be a catch somewhere. What does the 75 - 300mm III lens signify. The photo showed it to be a canon lens and also from a reputed online site.

You get what you pay for. Pro quality lenses are 1000+(from what I have seen). They say that the lens is more important than the camera, so I would be looking at getting a good lens, rather than two kit lenses that are so-so.

5. Any other thoughts or suggestions?

I am sure you will get lots, from the experts here.

[SkyWalker]

Originally Posted by kuttapan

Someone who used both brands would be the best person to explain the differences, I guess.

I have a Canon film SLR and now have a Nikon DSLR. I use both Canon & Nikon DSLRs as our family have a EOS 40D,a D300 and a D40 among us. I love all of them - all very capable cameras. Now before purists come and complain about comparing 40D & D300 with D40 - let me say due to its size and weight i really like D40 as a take anywhere camera with excellent performance over a P&S.

Originally Posted by kuttapan

Ken Rockwell says Nikons usually get out of his way as the adjustments are easier, while Canons have slightly more complicated menus/adjustments. I would like to know from regular Canon users if they find it cumbersome to make adjustments, or if it is just a matter of getting used to the camera.

Ken Rockwell can be a little biased, and its kinda obvious when you read him. However he has some good points. In general people tend to agree that Nikon have better ease of use & a more convenient menu system. But do note that i wont consider it as a big issue over time. I also love the Nikon colors better - i feel that they are more pleasing to the eye. But many a times these are subjective.

here's my suggestion Kuttapan, try the cameras you shortlist. See how it feels, handles and shoots. Compare sample pics you take across both cameras. Then choose the one you like. You cant go wrong with a Nikon or a Canon. I do have some reservations about Sony A series (poor ISO) and Oylpus E series (poor low light focussing) though. Never tried a Pentax DSLR.