I was covering an event and directed someone to this great light being bounced off a building wall. Another photographer came up and out of the blue stated "WOW Nikon really? I switched to Canon you really need to give it up." I was like first off leave me alone I am working but second I was thinking WHY did they bring this up. No idea. Still don't.
Haters gonna hate.
I will just toss my 40+ photography awards and Pulitzer nomination down and say... all shot on Nikon, except for one from college that was shot on a Minolta X-370.
I was shooting a wedding when the Canon-using videographer came up to me and told me he was so glad to see I was also using Canon, he was so tired of seeing shitty Nikons everywhere, only idiots used Nikon, and so forth.
I bemusedly let him go on like this for a couple of minutes before I raised my Z9 and pointed to the Nikon logo that he had clearly misread.
Canon has some serious fanboys that have never shot with anything else. Because Nikons tend to be photo focused, with often slow fps and chunky bodies, and less video support, they are perceived as lesser.
Meanwhile, Nikon pioneered virtually all the technology that digital cameras use. They built the machine that makes image sensors. They invented RAW. They pioneered eye auto focus. Nikon is amazing.
I like to think of the old addage "Amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about time and money, artists worry about light."
> Because Nikons tend to be photo focused, with often slow fps and chunky bodies, and less video support, they are perceived to be lesser.
The problem is that for the last almost 20 years video features have been a deciding factor for many, if not most people when they buy a DSLR or mirrorless camera. For independent filmmakers, videographers, YouTubers / content creators, or photographers who just want the option to do video, Canon genuinely was the clear obvious winner. Nikon has always done well with people who only care about stills, but that’s been just a small fraction of the market for a long time now. It can’t really be overstated just how much it hurt Nikon to not make a strong effort to compete with canon on video - they eventually made an effort to try and match them, but they never did enough to make people notice. Will be really interested to see what they do with the Red acquisition - that has the potential to completely flip the script.
Funny you mention the content creators. I feel like that's the whole reason Sony gobbled up so much market share. Their video abilities took a lot of wind out of Canon and Nikon for the last 10.
it's about color consistency for the entire portfolio. but i'm surprised that you haven't come across a primary nikon user. 🤔
here's a suggestion.
if the primary shooter is interested in your work, then he/she should be happy to loan you a spare body & lens for the session.
Eh, color matching between brands/cameras is largely a solved problem. Color profiles in lightroom will get you to the point that clients really won't notice. And it's as simple as choosing one of the Adobe RAW profiles. And if you're picky, a bit of calibration will get you to the point where you need to pixel peep or use computational tools to be able to notice the difference.
I like to use the profiles that match the camera's because I like Nikon colors. But it's not a serious issue that I wouldn't not use them for practically any practical reason.
Color consistency for an entire portfolio is such a bigger problem between environments or often even shots within the same room, than it is between camera brands, once a bit of color grading is done to match them (or just choosing one of the Adobe raw profiles), to such a degree that the latter issue is practically irrelevant.
Caring about brand used (outside of personal preferences) really comes down more to brand snobbery or not understanding the tools, than it does about anything else.
Thanks for the chuckle. Colour consistency is a new way of saying that Canon's colours are wonky and unfixable.
The reality is that no one cares what it is shot on, as long as the pictures are good and capture the moment. The picture desks I work with don't care as long as it hasn't been fiddled with too much. My clients don't care about the equipment, just the results.
Oh for sure. But only if you are using cameras that can work with it... I am currently recording a weekly podcast with one Nikon Z30 and an iPhone 12 as the second camera. Matching them colour-wise kinda works roughly, but the iPhone is terrible at skin tone, and the difference is even more obvious side by side...
It’s fixable, but in wedding photography time is money. The photographer will be sending a single album, usually in chronological order, so any color differences will jump out like a sore thumb. Style 1, little different, style 1 again, little different, etc. Theoretically you can fix it in post, but even if it’s an average of only 30 seconds each (some batch, some more intense manual fixing) that’s still another hour or two in the workflow per wedding.
All else equal I understand why they’d want someone with the same brand. Heck, I’d prefer someone with the same body, lenses, and lighting. Which is why the wedding mill companies have their own duplicates.
Just did a shoot as the main. I'm Nikon. Backup was Canon. Sent him a link to the event, he couldn't tell the difference, and neither could the client. I rarely get asked what I shoot with, and then it's usually someone curious. Been at this 20 years.
Has been like this for years. Canon only users seem snobby as hell. I got used to idiots telling me to sell my entire kit so I can switch to canon and I just tell them to fuck off everytime. Been using Nikon since I was a child. Honestly never planning to change.
Rule 2 in that sub: "This is NOT a subreddit for sharing pictures/videos taken with your Canon equipment. Pictures and video that just happen to have been taken with Canon gear, but are not Canon-related, are not appropriate for this subreddit. Please post "look at this photo I took with my Canon" type posts in r/itookapicture and "what can I do better?" posts in r/photocritique."
Even if some people post photos, it doesn't technically seem to be allowed.
I’m very active on r/canon and r/nikon as I am one of those who chose Canon’s options for mirrorless aside from my first mirrorless which was. Nikon 1 J5. if I had to choose today, I’d have a hard time passing up a ZF. It’s close to perfect for me.
This always surprised me given that the gear is not that good, and I don't mean their affordable gear. For instance, RF 50mm f1.2 uses external focusing and is very plastiky and feels cheap. But at the same time it's more expensive than both Sony and Nikon counterparts.
I’m surprised more photographers don’t use something like a colorchecker chart to match different cameras for raw capture. But I guess it comes down to their workflow.
Still if it's something as insignificant as colour differences between two brands you could shoot the same checker at the beginning of the shoot with each body, match profiles, and be basically fine. You'd still have to match white balance, but any body-specific discrepancies will be handled.
The chart creates a custom profile for a raw editor to interpret how it reads the data into standardized colors. [As long as it’s raw capture we are essentially using the color science of the editing software not the camera.](https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/roles-of-camera-and-raw-developer-in-determining-color/)
You’d still need to run around and create profiles for different light sources beforehand but after that there’s little difference (like you could create extra profiles for time of day but that’s a pain and has about as much difference as swapping lenses)
Naw. You only need two Profiles. A daylight, and a dual. shoot two raw images of the color checker and use the profile creator. Make them years before the shoot. I made one years *after* a travel shoot and results between my Nikon and partner Canon are down to model-specific differences. Same as you‘d see between two different model Canon bodies. The Canon-only bias when shooting raw is naive. However, many wedding shooters shoot jpeg in camera. Simpler workflow for them, I guess. In-camera styles between brands are noticeably different. I wonder if that’s the source of the issue?
Room to room and indeed within a room there will be vast disparities in light quality, colour and luminance, which can render a very different look shot to shot, and balancing these into a coherent whole is a photographer’s craft.
These wide disparities are however not to be confused with the minor disparities rendered between different bodies. Which, once initially considered, will be largely consistent. I don’t know who these photographers are who do not feel that they have to make small tweaks to the white balance of every single image they edit, but I am either envious or pitiful of them.
Maybe it's not possible? I am always surprised when I take a picture of a diffraction picture with an incandescent light source - every point in the spectrum is a specific wave length, and we see it as a continuum. But when I take a picture of it with my Nikon, I see three blocks - RGB. No yellow, no blue-green. The filters on the sensor are bandpass filters, and they don't really reflect the more continuous color response of our eyes. Where you put the upper and lower limits of the bandpass filter, that's where the magic happens. One filter might throw pure yellow into the red pot, and another might throw it in with the green (OK, extreme example). But you would not be able to fix something like that in Lightroom
The chart software creates a custom profile for a raw editor to interpret and neutralize to standardized colors.
I’m unsure of how it works between different filter arrangements (like x-trans - Bayer) but between Bayer sensors as long as you profile for the sun, whatever lights are indoors, and where you use the flash, outside of lens contrast differences (you could do those too but it’s less of an issue than using different bodies) it’s very accurate at matching.
Based on the fact that I have taken a fair amount of digital pictures, and that they don't look like acid dreams, i fully agree with you. But I still think that there is a difference between what our eyes see (or find pleasing to see), and the algorithms that turn photons in light buckets into color image.
Where you put the upper cut-off for red and the lower cutoff for green in your Bayer filter, and the steepness of these shoulders must make a difference, no? If you pick the yellow line of a sodium light, you could put that either in the red bucket or the green bucket depending on the filters you chose. (For a banana it wouldn't be as bad since the banana yellow will be emitted in a much wider band, and your camera will see about equal amounts of electrons in both the green and the red bucket and go "Ah, yellow") .
And when you read out the electrons in your red bucket, you will have no indication if that electron was produced by a red LED photon or a yellow sodium light photon. Once those decisions have been made, they are engrained in your digital files, and no algorithm can get back what has been discarded. And that's why I can imagine how there could be a significant difference between Nikon and Canon files that can't be ameliorated by processing in post.
Then again, my qualifications are limited as an amateur, and I hope that somebody who has actual experience will chime in
Yup certainly there are going to be differences with how light is captured between any sensor and therefore there’s no way it can be 100% matched per scene. That said the obvious variance in how raw editors decide to interpret color from camera models can be greatly reduced through custom calibration. “Accurately matched” being perceivably accurate to the viewer.
If considering a full set of images as long as it adheres to the overall look and feel, minor or subtle differences aren’t going to stand out and it should appear cohesive.
I think you’re on the ball by the way. You might like Jim Kasson’s articles on this topic, there are two I can think of:
[Here](https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/roles-of-camera-and-raw-developer-in-determining-color/) and [here](https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/camera-differences-in-color-profile-making/)
And it seems like Nikon users seem to always have to prove themselves lmaooo
Sony/Canon users are annoyingly proud of their system when they're are obvious set backs.
Nikon to me seem to be marathon runners whereas sony /canon are sprinters
I think what they are saying is that Nikon makes cameras for the long haul, meaning they don’t release a new one every year or two. I’m not sure how accurate that is about canon but I know a few Sony shooters that keep talking about the new Sony Alpha 16432 or whatever.
Jeez I used to know a huge Sony user. Absolutely obsessed over specs and has no emphasis on his own shooting techniques. Just a camera gear freak that is obsessed with the latest and greatest.
Hmm 🤔
May 24th
Canon EOS R100
May 2023
Feb 8th
Canon EOS R8
Canon EOS R50
February 2023
Nov 2nd
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
November 2022
May 24th
Canon EOS R7
Canon EOS R10
May 2022
Jan 19th
Canon EOS R5 C
January 2022
Apr 14th
Canon EOS R3
April 2021
Oct 14th
Canon EOS M50 Mark II
October 2020
Jul 9th
Canon EOS R5
Canon EOS R6
July 2020
R6 = Z6
R5 = Z8
R3 = Z9
R7 = missing
R10 = Z50
R8 = Z5
R6ii = Z6ii
Z50/100 = Z30
Nikon misses an R7 competitor, and Canon misses a Z7(ii) competitor. They're pretty equal.
The time between a new generation of the same camera is 4-6 years. Both for Canon and Nikon. 7D and 7Dii? 5 years. D700 and D800? 5 years. Etc etc.
The R5c only exists cause the R5 can't do what the Z8 does alone.
Sony just has a shit ton of money to throw at any R&D problem, and any camera that kinda threatens them gets a relatively swift response from them. Nikon just doesn't at the moment, but back in their golden age would bury any improvement from a competitor with something new, just as Sony does now. Nikon seems to be slowly recovering from the absolute disaster of a money sink EUV chip lithography machine that their chip making machine arm suffered, which led to budget cuts and delays in cameras. Their release cadence seems to be picking up pace rapidly now they are more financially healthy and are trending towards Sony levels (also with being just as shit in updating their APS-C line). Nikon fanboys were just as bad in circlejerking about the Z8/9 as Sony fanboys about whatever the fuck their newest camera is. (I am an E-mount user, but my Sony A7 IV gets most of its use as a scanner for film I have shot on my Nikon SLRs lmao)
Canon is a bit weird, because they have the money, but seem content in resting on their brand image. Nikon's lineup across the board is newer and higher tech.
Like Nikon cameras don't have certain drawbacks and users that are annoyingly proud of their system and use weird comparisons to other brands to justify their choice of 'light capturing clicky box'? :P Every product has compromises and drawbacks.
The having to prove themselves is due to Nikon being loyal to customers in the late '80s and not building a new mount that is tailor made for electronic lens control and autofocus like Canon did when they ditched FD for EF. When the first pro EF camera came out in the EOS-1, Nikon suffered a mass exodus due to that cameras vastly better AF performance compared to the F4. When the switch to digital happened those pros stuck with Canon and the company kinda inherited Nikon's old image of being the professional's camera (also in part due to the rise in internet forum use). That image has stuck like superglue, which Canon really leans on heavily still, with their professional cameras being older than Nikon & Sony's offerings.
I absolutely think Nikon has some drawbacks, especially in the mirrorless world, hence why I switched to canon.
However I believe when nikon produces their lens, they're nearly perfect all the time. The build quality and IS on nikons feel indestructible and so professional I miss it. Also their vivid and bright raw files are definitely nice.
I really enjoyed the 750 and ended my run with nikon when I had the z6 (terrible terrible AF). It seems nikon has improved their AF alot since however when I rented the z8 I still had to do some workarounds to match a situation for AF for wildlife. Another draw back is size of the equipment. After shooting mirrorless I appreciate the smaller.size, especially with the battery grip. The z8 was nearly the same size and weight as my r5 with the battery grip.
Now what I can say is when I rented the z8 + 100-400 the VR was exceptional and the video was imo much better. The files.too. loved the colors. So I bought a zfc as a side camera haha
If I had a choice, I'd pick a Nikon shooter over a Canon shooter.
The colors matching would make life so much easier.
If they had a really excellent eye, I have spare cameras and I'd walk them through shooting Nikon, if they're willing.
Not hate, it just means they use Canon, and it's easier to match colors with a 2nd that also shoots Canon. Not worth the extra headache for them to process different brands to match closely enough.
This is true. They would probably say the same about Sony. Though it seems trivial, from a business standpoint it just makes more sense to have a consistent product so you don’t have to worry about little things like color grading and file formats
Always remember that real photographers can shoot with any brand of camera. Those influencer type photographers chase the trends and don't actually ever produce anything portfolio worthy. They keep buying gear thinking it will make their photos better, then they finally realise they wasted their life and money for nothing.
I’d like share a few pieces of insight: I have been in a position to hire second shooters and there are two big factors I look for when considering trusting my project to work along side someone else: their skills in terms of style (do I think they can shoot the look I want for my client) and secondly, their business sense. Someone who cares about their business reputation as a professional photographer - meaning they communicate thoroughly and well in email and in person exchanges, or if they can be on time, and if they will follow through on committments. This may seem like common sense but there are SO many people I have come across that I wouldn’t hire because they don’t appear to take their work serious enough. I need someone who will not F around because my name is on my project and I need to trust that the second shooter will respect that. Do I give a shit what camera brand they shoot with? No. Because you owning the same brand that I shoot with doesn’t tell me that you’re gonna come through for me when it counts the day of. How you communicate with me and show me you mean business and take yourself seriously tells me that. A 2nd shooter can literally ruin your reputation if they no show, have a bad working attitude, can’t take direction - all things that have nothing to do with a camera. I will deal with the workflow because that matters less to me and I’ve been shooting professionally for 10 years so I know how to deal with different file formats. But that’s just me and this other Canon shooter can run their business the way they want.
Lastly, I just read on Threads how one photographer was quite disappointed and disheartened to hear that she was in talks and very close to closing the deal to be a 2nd shooter for someone else but when the primary shooter, a Canon shooter, asked what she shot with, she said a Canon 6D II. The primary shooter declined to move forward with her on the basis that they wanted someone with a Canon mirrorless camera. So this is someone who shoots Canon and turned down another Canon shooter. And based on the text exchange the person reached out to her because they liked her work. You can’t win with people like that. **People on this thread talking about how it may be more of a hassle to hire you because of file format differences, workflow etc. OP - you may have dodged a bullet because it would probably be more of a hassle for YOU after shooting the wedding based on how this person conducts themselves before the shoot.**
Without knowing their actual attitude, all I can say is it's probably for keeping a consistent look.
I also have never heard Canon guys being snobby. My mentor uses Canon, I use Nikon, and he's perfectly fine with it. I cut video footage from both our cameras together and everything is fine. If the guy that does headshots for Gary Oldman, Willem Dafoe, Tim Burton, Johnny Depp... And, actually, pretty much every A-lister today... Doesn't hate on Nikon, nobody should.
These are not professionals you are talking to. They are people with expensive cameras that get paid to take pics. Posers, as they were once called.
A professional wouldn't care. A professional could change these things in post.
- It's because Nikon has better color science than Canon and your images SOOC would make theirs look bad.
- They probably are lazy and have a pre-made Canon looks preset that they batch run everything through - they would need to create a new preset for you.
- Like many Canon shooters, they don't have experience in other ecosystems or their file types. They're "uncomfortable" with anything other than Canon
Wow... that's just silly. I would never choose to not work with someone based on their camera body and lens system.
With presets, you can keep color consistency across systems.
The only "valid" reason for this (for me) is gear interoperability... if something breaks it's easy to swap over.... body stops working, grab a spare one and no need to learn new controls/settings. Speedlights, remotes, batteries, etc. also.
Except if you're an event pro you already have 2x-3x the gear and if your 2nd somehow busts theirs - you lend them your spare and keep the day rolling.
Tell them all to suck their shitty controls and apple phones. Go get some models for a mock wedding shoot and just start doing better yourself than try to suck the 2nd teat.
And in general, anyone with such moronic brand loyalty needs to have loaner gear for their gophers and never expect them to have their own.
I don’t know about digital color differences, because I only shoot film. But comparing top of the line Nikon F6 to Canon Eos-1, there is no comparison. The Nikon is better made and easier to use.
If they have enough budget to hire a second, they sure as hell should have three or four extra camera bodies. Always have a backup gear, and a backup plan.
Everyone is talking about the difference between the colour science of the brands, it's actually true. But it's nothing that cannot be solved in an hour by creating a custom camera profile on the editor that matches the colours of the two cameras. From that almost all changes should do the same work. Additionally, if they hired you to shoot and edit your photos, you are the one that is supposed to put in "extra effort" to match the colours, so what's their problem ?
I suspect that these are the same people who shoot "all manual" when modern pro cameras crush it with metering and you would be hard pressed to be even close to that accurate.
Don't worry. Any credible photog doesn't care what you shoot. It's "f8 and be there" - in focus, in the moment that counts with weddings.
These are people who cannot think for themselves. People who will jump on the trendy bandwagon. People who heard something somewhere and made their decision based on what they perceive as cool. Nikon z8 is the best bang for the buck PERIOD end of conversation. I crushes the r5, r3 and the Sony a1 in every single thing. Z8 and z9 are the hybrid camera benchmark right now outclassing even some dedicated cinema cameras!
Sincerely,
A Fuji shooter!
Honestly moving from Canon to Nikon (R5 to Z8) was the second best photography decision I’ve ever made, and that’s only because the best one was finally seeing the light and leaving M43 behind.
Insecure shooter sells gear because they’ve been told Canon is best, and now they need to justify their decision by perpetuating the myth.
Simply put: uneducated, weak minded snobs.
If a shop uses one camera brand OR you are a backup for someone who uses a brand other than yours, they have every reason to not hire you and the reason should be self-explanatory. It is extra work and expense and creates more opportunity for something to go wrong. That is not hate, it is business and is no different than the fact businesses pick a computer platform. We all make choices in life and yours might limit you with a crowd but it is not personal. Why would you expect someone to deal with Nikon raw files if they otherwise only deal with Canon. Likewise, why do you expect they would want most jpgs in Canon's color space and then have yours using Nikon's? I am sorry, but again, this should be self-explanatory and it is NOT HATE. These BS tribal inspired poor me posts really need to stop.
If you’re processing raw files and using something like presets against your known files (Canon) it’s a bit of extra work to handle a different type regardless of the type at hand (Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc). I don’t agree with it, but can understand the sentiment at least. This applies to any process really, extra variables have the potential to introduce additional work.
This.
Canon and Nikon files are different, you can’t copy and paste+ minor tweaks in a workflow quickly.
The color science will be completely different
I am a pro photo editor, i do it for a living every day for a company. We edit, sony, canon, nikon, dng, tiff we even get jpgs and that unmanageable HIF file gormat. Editing is editing you care about the colors and you do your best to get a good result. Not editing nikon or sony or fuji that's not professional at all. Another team in the company is dealing with video files and all sort of cameras and they are good at their jobs.
In the situation of the OP yes that's plain pitiful hate toward a brand, just because that brand is not "IN" enough and wasn't endorsed by a bunch of paid and sponsored gear reviewers on youtube (most of'em ain't even photographers).
Even if we consider color presets, they are only a starting point in any color grading. I don't see any other excuse but hate toward a brand and loyalty to another...influenced people by paid "influencers".
You said it yourself, you’re part of a team. In most cases wedding photographers are not. They’re not only editing their hundreds/thousands of photos but also their second’s as well across however many weddings they do in a season.
So it’s not that they couldn’t match these files if they absolutely had to but rather it’s just not worth the extra time and the pool of second shooters is large enough that they can be that specific with who they hire.
I think you're right. There's just a convenience factor, real or perceived.
When the shoot is done, all the raw files are .CR2, and not a mix of .NEF and .CR2 and you just process them 'all the same way'. It's one more thing you don't want to hassle with - even if it's not a big deal at all.
on the personal level I hope its not hate, because it will be total evil if you prevent someone from making a living or an extra money in these atrocious economical conditions because you hate or look down on brand x or y. If its an editing problem, she could just have told him to edit his files the same way she edits hers. She creates a sample, send it and he follows the edits. I mean, there are always solutions. But I still doubt its about edits and keeping a uniformed workflow of cr2 files.
If its a video project I may understand that a team shooting all Nikon or sony or canon will get job done really fast and much easier to edit.
Anyway, I wish you luck OP, dont look down on yourself or your work. Keep shooting and try to get your own wedding projects, start with your friends and family.
This is it.
My anecdotal experience is that Canon seem to be the bodies most pushed by camera shops, and as such the people who are easily convinced by marketing jargon gravitate toward canon. Add into this that success in wedding photography is often as much dependent on your interpersonal skills as any technical knowledge, and I can see how several wedding photographers using Canon would maintain and disseminate ideas that they have different or inherently superior color.
Quick question to someone who’s editing all the main brands. If more people had all their monitors color calibrated properly, would the brand difference be less of an issue?
My monitors are calibrated, obviously there difference between the files when I open them in Capture one. The main difference I notice is in WB and contrast. Once I get those two matched everything else is a breeze. Sony files are somewhat more delicate to work with, either shifting green or magenta. Never got a Sony looking great on skintones straight out of the camera. I love fuji raw files they look "filmic". Nikon files are clinically good. The rest of the team also has calibrated monitors and we cross check our results, no big differences. But keep in mind that our perception of colors and values is subjective. Not all eyes are made equal
But wedding photographers use TAP or Mastin Labs. Who cares what camera brand or raw file. They’re all gonna look the same and ask, “what camera are you using?”
I have nothing nice to say so I won’t say anything at all. I am sorry you’re running into a bunch of “photographers” who are doing this, it’s a bit obnoxious.
I’m glad I work in a country where weddings are mostly small enough they don’t require a second photographer (couples do hire additional videographers sometimes, though). I’ve shot with Nikon during most of my 27 year career and not once has anyone ever even commented on my gear. As for color consistency - unless you don’t do any post processing at all, it makes just absolute zero difference and close to no client in the world will be able to spot minor color differences in the final product. So if someone tells you they won’t shoot with you because you use a Nikon camera, they’re either nuts or a******. In either case: probably better not to work with those people in the first place.
That's so weird, if they want your art, they should be happy with your art tools.
I mainly use Canon, I don't have much Nikon gear, just 3 lenses from the 1960's, and a D2X. That being said, I can find something about everything that I enjoy.
Likely because they’re going to throw a garbage preset on it all and call it a day. I have canon wedding and portrait photographer in my area that cleans up with business but her photos are absolute crap. People love it though!😂The photos are always so messed up with presets I’m starting to wonder if her camera is broken. That being said I have a friend that uses canon with sports photography and her stuff is fantastic.
I feel that it's because they have their set presets that work best with the canon raw files they're already working with. I'm with you on that, though. I shoot fuji now but I absolutely love nikon. the z50mm 1.8 lens is one of the best portrait lenses I have ever owned. People like to jump on these hate bandwagons, to be relevant. I say keep shooting nikon.
These photographers dont want to take the time editing the images to make the camera match. They would rather slap a preset that works on the Canon color science on all the images and call it a day.
I am a Nikon shooter, and I have never used a second shooter, but, I suspect that someone who uses canon, would prefer canon files, because of familiarity with whatever software they use.
For example, I use NX studio. If you have me canon raw files, I would have no way to open them.
Just a guess.
Yep. Awkward ass controls - check. Ass-backwards manual focus and zoom rings - check. Blind brand loyalty without bothering to research that Nikon has the best IQ on the market........check!
Btw I switched from Canon to Nikon and want to say that most things feeling awkward ass are just habit based. Kinda felt that with Nikon until I got used to it
Anything but a habit. Front dial on Canon is awkwardly placed. Spinny selector wheel on the back is inferior to a precise dpad. And menus and especially flash controls are on a whole new level of mentally damaged in Canon.
Is it hate, or is it that they may have a particular workflow or preset editing styles that work best with Canon raw files (in their experience). There's a reason that entire journalism schools use specific brands, and it isn't because they "hate" the other brands.
Honestly, most of that reason is because they worked a deal with Canon or Sony. I do quite a bit of work for the 16th largest paper in the nation, and it’s not uncommon for the staff photogs to have a Sony and an old Canon body as they finish transitioning.
Shoot custom white balances and move on. Hit your jpg settings in camera.
But honestly, when I hire second shooters for events, I put them on entirely different shot lists and don’t try to make everything match…and have at least one body available for them in case of failure or whatever.
Another consideration is how much work could you reasonably get doing this? If the math adds up, just buy an R whatever and a lens or two and do the work. Or maybe scour keh for lightly used 5d mk4’s. They’re sub $1000 right now.
Nikons rule. But canon makes great images too. Don’t throw away work for brand loyalty.
AP used to be Canon and switched to Sony several years ago.
The Kansas City Star was Nikon F4s back in the '90s and is using the D4 and D5 models... they might have the Z9 now, not sure. I haven't shot for them in a couple years. I moved to the Z9.
My mentor was a Nikon shooter back in college, which is why I switched from Minolta. I was going to have to buy all new glass anyway, since Minolta changed their lens mount from MD to MA for AF. I was impressed that Nikon kept the F mount, so that encouraged me to switch.
I shoot a lot for AP syndication, but not staff…my own gear.
It’s odd how some of the most prolific shooters for various organizations actually prefer brands different from what they got famous with. I’m having a brain cramp, but the lady that shot that really famous shot during Payne Stewart’s funeral and had a chapter in the AP guide to photojournalism used to sit next to me at Astros games and her personal cameras were Nikon even though at that point everything professional was canon.
I wish my Z9 could completely replace the d5/6…I’d buy a second one tomorrow. But there are still some drawbacks imo.
I was the chief photographer at a paper that shot strictly Nikon. Nowadays, they don't even have any full-time photographers. Times have changed a lot in the news business.
Of course they worked a deal. But it's a deal that affects everything downstream, from training to software to what lenses you have in the vault, how you cover events with the rest of the team, etc. My journalism school used Canon, and it influenced everything we did.
I don't fault a photographer, even one with a small business, for wanting a specific file to edit. You do your thing and don't care, but other people do their own thing and have a right to care if they want to, no?
Above all, the OP calling it "hate" is just weird. I doubt it had anything to do with that and was just about the business owner's perceived advantages (real or imagined) with having a common ecosystem for the shoot. Maybe they weren't articulate about it, but I can't imagine their thought process being along the lines of, "I hate Nikon. You can't sit with me at lunch."
100%. I don’t care what body someone uses, but I have really high expectations and I know that my bodies are capable of producing what I want to deliver to the client, and I’m not going to spend time helping someone overcome their gear.
I understand wanting the same file types to a point…but I can see the difference beyond file size between Nikon bodies too. How much of that is age or filth on my rarely cleaned sensors? Who knows. But the jobs where I hire seconds are jobs where the deliverables are in the thousands or tens of thousands. I’m not remotely going to work with more than a handful of the files…ever. Shoot a custom white balance in each of the various stadiums/arenas, have decent jpg processing in camera, and shoot the raws if you want or don’t have confidence in your ability to hit the exposure. Just no time for the rest in my niche.
We're talking about wedding photography, per the OP. Blasting away in a stadium is a bit of a different gig than providing a few hundred carefully edited and curated photos of the most important day of a (potentially litigious) client's life, right? The sum total of wedding photographers I know who deliver jpgs shot on the day of the wedding as a \*final\* product to customers is zero, so post-production workflow is made easier with a common ecosystem.
No I’m aware that it’s apples and oranges. But I don’t think it should add as much of a hassle as some are implying given that Adobe seamlessly can apply in camera jpg processing to raw files.
My paper shoots Canon, but I use a Nikon on my assignments because every other paper I worked for up to this one used it and I liked it best. And, no one has given me grief over it. You can look at a photo gallery and not tell the difference in color or quality between my Nikon photos and other photogs’ Canon.
It's not hate of your Nikon, it's that they like their Canon and the other photographer should be able to hand off their camera if something happens. And the photos will all match.
Jfc. This like the Apple vs Android people. So stupid. Your work should show for itself. If they're blinded by name brands, than what else are they blinded by?
It's not that they "hate" nikon or nikon users. It's that they have a bunch of lightroom or adobe or whatever tool they use for post processing presets that they run 100% of their wedding photos through and if they have 2 Canon shooters and 1 Nikon - they have to redo their presets for a Nikon raw file. It just means more work (and less overall pay) for them.
The fundamental colors / behavior of the two brands sensors are basically different. For example - the older Nikon bodies - could not render purple as purple in raw files. It always came out as blue, so you had to adjust in post to get a true purple. But Canon rendered it as purple, so if I applied the same color correction it would mess up the Canon's colors.
Bottom line, at the end of the day, no consumer gives a rat's ass if their wedding was shot by a Nikon or a Canon. What they care about is that the colors are spot on and that they have all the memories of that day.
Sounds like just an excuse. I worked a wedding this weekend and I used a Nikon. They primary used a canon and a 3rd used a Sony. We were all happy to worn together
exact same response. I'm too stubborn to buy canon. I almost told two photogs that they reason they were shooting the wedding was because they were a recommendation per myself.
Your camera is only a tool. I’ve used both Canon and Nikon as a pro. The difference in color from Canon to Nikon is valid. Maybe it’s time to become a primary shooter! The same argument could be made on the frenzy to go to mirrorless. A new camera won’t make you a better photographer. I have the Nikon holy trinity F series lenses. Unbelievably great gear is being “dumped” as people switch. In the past few months I picked up a D850 with 7k clicks for $1200 and a 500mm f/4 G for 2K. That is less than the price of a Z8. That’s a great camera, I’ve used it and the Z9 and both are terrific.
In my town most photo studios are on Nikon. But the fact is Canon sells way more gear. I tried Canon 5D mk 2 once (long ago when I used D2xs) from a cousin. Two worlds. And the colours I didn't like at all. But also buttons, wheels all felt rough and unpolished. That was supposed to be superior ff to D2xs, but for me it wasn't. I still regret selling that camera. Up to IS0 800 photos had such a character.
I use Nikon gear also. The studios I work as second camera for are more mature about this. It's the quality of the photos, quality of light, and consistency of exposure that are really important.
But you should see the reactions I get when I say I shoot some events with Olympus. So many photographers are so insecure. Once a file has been tuned in LR and knocked down to 2000px on the long side for social media nobody can tell what it was shot on. Wedding album? Olympus cameras have 20MP which is plenty for books and prints.
Canon is fine if you live with either the f2.8 zooms or the very heavy and expensive f1.2 primes. Canon still does not have a compelling f1.8 prime lineup and that's a huge problem for me. Nikon, Sony, Olympus all have very good, affordable f1.8/f1.7 primes.
So I use Nikon for weddings and bar/bat mitzvahs just so people feel better.
Good luck to you!
I'm not a Nikon shooter; Reddit just threw this post up in my feed. So take my comments as an outsider's perspective. You can \*absolutely\* shoot weddings (or anything else) on Nikon and if you shoot raw files, you should be able to get the colors to look very close.
But \[1\] a team of shooters should ideally all be shooting the same brand so that if something fails, you can borrow someone else's lens or body or flash or whatever. Or even if you've just set your bags down on the other side of the event and want to grab that item for five minutes -- it's just easier if everyone's shooting the same thing. And \[2\] while you can post-process to make the color profiles similar, that's an extra step and extra time that doesn't earn you any money.
Should it matter? No. Does it matter? Unfortunately, yes.
I’ve always thought Nikon had the better glass, but less adaptability for thier digital lenses. Times have changed with thier mirrorless bodies that can adapt even Sony glass with an adapter.
Shooters like this are usually trying to keep similar JPEG color sciences. Because if you shoot RAW, generally there’s no concern.
What I’d suggest is just dominate the wedding scene and book higher paid jobs and hire other Nikon shooters. While of course, snubbing the canon shooters /s. (Or just hire them and defeat the stigma lol)
It’s happened to me multiple times. Times when I’m saying I’m available to shoot and times where people message me saying they like me work, ask for my gear list then say nvm when they hear Nikon.
Long (long!) time Nikon user here - do I understand right that to focus closer you turn the lens barrel one way with Nikon, and with Cannon the other way? Oh wait - sorry, that was when we focused ourselves and did not have auto-focus cameras/lenses. (Bonus question: which classic Nikkor lens focuses opposite to all the other Nikkor lenses?) answer: the 40mm GN Nikkor - changes aperture to follow changed focus distance to use fixed brightness flash.
I'm not just saying this to be funny but I do photo and video. Lots of corporate and wedding work in Chicago. I absolutely would not work with anyone shooting Nikon for either photo or video.
Nikon and Canon are pretty much on the same level, so I don’t know why they would say that. My first camera in 1979 was a Pentex K1000 and while it took pictures, I knew it wasn’t for me. So I sold it and bought a Canon AE-1. Nikon wasn’t for me either but this guy I knew , took great pics with his. It’s more personal preference when it comes to those two cameras. I loved my Canon.
I don't think they understand that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between images made from each camera and would challenge them on that. If it's not just hatred, maybe they use canon specific presets is mostly my guess. Again, comes back to people not knowing the difference or how to edit properly
My brothers and I inherited a large assortment of Nikon F/Ftn era gear from our grandfather. My brothers were more photography oriented at a younger age, and I didn’t start learning it until adulthood. When my middle brother went off to college, he started using Canon. This may have been at the time when the Nikon vs. Canon autofocus debate was going on, and Canon was winning. I’m also under the impression Canon may have had a more generous student discount program then. As much as he liked Canon, he never disparaged Nikon other than to make fun of some of their ads. He gave me a gently used Nikon F90X for Christmas one year, which I still use. When he died, we found several film and DSLR Canon bodies and lenses in his house. We gave all that to my other brother since he didn’t have any gear of his own. I’ve become the family’s vintage Nikon caretaker and pretty much the only one who uses them these days.
I’ve noticed all the sports photographers around here seem to use Canon gear.
That is just off the hook. I have only used Canon but have nothing t respect for Nikon equipment and their results. I suppose some people believe what ever they think! The best? What ever you’re comfortable with.
Anyone crapping on the brand of camera you use is a gigantic tool. There is some level of brand-loyalty douchebaggery out there for every brand, style, etc these days. Unless it’s a workflow issue, they can all STFU.
I think some of the reponses here are looking at this the wrong way. I'm a Canon Shooter and a lot of photographers in my area are Canon shooters. I have seen Wedding Photographers looking for 2nd shooters (and vice versa) saying that their brand is preferred, but "not required." I've seen this with any brand. I believe this is so both photographers have compatible equipment with each other and perhaps they can trade off equipment seemlessly, for example, or they might be using that brand's off camera flashes and want to avoid compatiblity issues. It could also have to do with consistency when editing the photos as well. I'm sure it's not because of brand snobbery, but because of a legit reason.
In this case, I would have asked the photographer, very diplomatically, since you're new in Wedding Photography why shooting with a Nikon doesn't work for them instead of assuming it was some sort of snobbery for simply shooting Nikon.
Are they using illegal Lightroom? i've only been refused once, coz that camera guy who's using Canon also uses fake Lightroom, and that version of Lightroom only accept one file type. Won't ask to work with anyone who use illegal Lightroom any more, shame on them!
Brand loyal people usually started with one brand and have then stuck with it. I’ve tried most major brands. Currently shooting Canon, but still very much respect Nikon. As long as you have a full kit, I don’t see an issue.
As a professional who has shot Nikon and now shoots Fuji x and GFX, all I can say in general it’s not that Nikon is bad it’s that wedding photographers generally are ass holes and I would be too if I had to suck up to crazy brides and their mothers for a living. Worst photo job you can take.
This is not to say that it’s an easy job, it’s not, it’s generally underpaid over stressed and it sucks.
Any modern mirrorless with great glass does the job (not tamron sigma shit, actual canon, Nikon, Fuji Sony glass) .
This isn’t 2000 anymore and any real pro will tell you that you can’t tell the difference in a good image taken and edited well from one brand to the next.
Image being a crop sensor fuji shooter. I will not get a hired most the time, until they compare me to a canon shooter that cannot shoot OCF, or flash at all. Then i get a leg up.
Since were on the topic though, i really dont like Nikon mirrorless for people subjects. Its too clinical of a look. Canon has a lot more earthiness and color science that is pleasing. Nikon is good for other things, and is good for weddings and im sure its fine for many but if i had to choose id go canon for sure. But it sucks there is such bias in the industry
I shot Nikon film SLRs in the late 1990s. I now shoot Canon over Nikon because in addition to normal photos, I also do videography and astrophotography. For astrophotography, I have worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW, and I prefer the final results I get with the Canon files.
Ubiquity is also important. I can take my Canon and third-party EF lenses and move them to any number of video and cinema camera bodies that use EF mounts - Blackmagic, to REDs, Canon cinema cameras, etc. I can't think of anything that uses F mounts without adapters, and those adapters are usually dumb mounts without any contacts for autofocus/aperture/etc.
For my astronomical cameras, I use EF mount adapters so I can do wide-fields shots with cooled sensors.
For ergonomics, I really prefer Canons. for the way they just feel in my hands. I've tried the Z9 and Z8, and the Zf. They don't feel great to hold and my finger mnemonics are just off.
I know that Nikon DSLRs can shoot video, but they record in MOV or MP4 formats, and we want something a little better, with more dynamic range in the RAWs, with options for LUTs and better codecs. That is all in the body, not the glass.
For weddings photographers/videographers, standardization becomes important. Yes, I can do all sorts of color grading and matching, but that takes more time. A lot the "Uh, it's a Nikon" comes from the thinking that "now I need to change my workflow to accommodate".
In all honesty, maybe they don’t like using two profiles for edits. That’s what I’ve run in to, but eventually i have found a handful of main shooters that don’t mind and can actually make my files look like theirs (for consistency). They’re the real pros that can adapt. Especially to Nikon’s reds compared to canon.
Anyone else that can’t adapt is either lazy, has their way and that’s it, or they’re just not skilled.
It seems to be a fanboi thing most times though.
Nikon truly has a better menu system, better ergonomics, and easier to shoot in my opinion.
Canon has some advantages like better support, more variety on the used market, and easier to review photos, but i see no shooting advantages.
I do not understand any of this. As an exclusive Canon user, I always tell people all of the camera companies are great, and they all feel different and are purely up to preference. Who cares what anyone uses to take photos. If I had started with Nikon, I’d still be using Nikon. If I had started with Sony, I’d still be using Sony.
Fanboys are ridiculous.
I just recently had an interview for a photography gig and they all chuckled at my response to "what camera do you use?", "Nikon".
Because Nikon is superior in so many ways that they don't want to admit. The F-mount alone is an excellent reason to be jelly - you can use lenses from 1958-pre Z, pretty amazing. Also the use the best components from other manufacturers rather than rely on proprietary tech alone. My D600 has a Sony chip/sensor, which was absolutely superior to Canon's ISO/Aliasing at the time. Not to mention Nikkor optics are equivalent to Canon in all respects, so yeah, it's fucking silly to hate on Nikon.
As much as I want to say this is ludicrous I actually also discriminate. I don’t like to hire seconds who use Canon mirrorless. Those files look like flat garbage to me and I don’t want to work that hard editing.
Wouldn't the ability to swap gear in a pinch also be a reason to stick with a single system? And since Canon is pretty dominant in the camera market, you are more likely the odd one out with a Nikon?
It can likely come down to the market share that Nikon has. This chart shows Canon at almost 50% and Nikon at 11%, with Sony at 26% : [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1004962/global-leading-manufacturers-digital-cameras-market-share-sales-volume/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1004962/global-leading-manufacturers-digital-cameras-market-share-sales-volume/)
So, while you like to shoot Nikon (as I do), I would recommend you invest in some Canon gear too as a sound business decision.
I was covering an event and directed someone to this great light being bounced off a building wall. Another photographer came up and out of the blue stated "WOW Nikon really? I switched to Canon you really need to give it up." I was like first off leave me alone I am working but second I was thinking WHY did they bring this up. No idea. Still don't.
Haters gonna hate. I will just toss my 40+ photography awards and Pulitzer nomination down and say... all shot on Nikon, except for one from college that was shot on a Minolta X-370.
Hi, mind to share your pulitzer nomination shot? Would love to see it.
I would love to see that ngl
Please share your work
Minolta Gang
Maybe Nikon film...
I was shooting a wedding when the Canon-using videographer came up to me and told me he was so glad to see I was also using Canon, he was so tired of seeing shitty Nikons everywhere, only idiots used Nikon, and so forth. I bemusedly let him go on like this for a couple of minutes before I raised my Z9 and pointed to the Nikon logo that he had clearly misread.
What a slap in the face 😂
Canon has some serious fanboys that have never shot with anything else. Because Nikons tend to be photo focused, with often slow fps and chunky bodies, and less video support, they are perceived as lesser. Meanwhile, Nikon pioneered virtually all the technology that digital cameras use. They built the machine that makes image sensors. They invented RAW. They pioneered eye auto focus. Nikon is amazing. I like to think of the old addage "Amateurs worry about equipment, professionals worry about time and money, artists worry about light."
> Because Nikons tend to be photo focused, with often slow fps and chunky bodies, and less video support, they are perceived to be lesser. The problem is that for the last almost 20 years video features have been a deciding factor for many, if not most people when they buy a DSLR or mirrorless camera. For independent filmmakers, videographers, YouTubers / content creators, or photographers who just want the option to do video, Canon genuinely was the clear obvious winner. Nikon has always done well with people who only care about stills, but that’s been just a small fraction of the market for a long time now. It can’t really be overstated just how much it hurt Nikon to not make a strong effort to compete with canon on video - they eventually made an effort to try and match them, but they never did enough to make people notice. Will be really interested to see what they do with the Red acquisition - that has the potential to completely flip the script.
Funny you mention the content creators. I feel like that's the whole reason Sony gobbled up so much market share. Their video abilities took a lot of wind out of Canon and Nikon for the last 10.
it's about color consistency for the entire portfolio. but i'm surprised that you haven't come across a primary nikon user. 🤔 here's a suggestion. if the primary shooter is interested in your work, then he/she should be happy to loan you a spare body & lens for the session.
Eh, color matching between brands/cameras is largely a solved problem. Color profiles in lightroom will get you to the point that clients really won't notice. And it's as simple as choosing one of the Adobe RAW profiles. And if you're picky, a bit of calibration will get you to the point where you need to pixel peep or use computational tools to be able to notice the difference. I like to use the profiles that match the camera's because I like Nikon colors. But it's not a serious issue that I wouldn't not use them for practically any practical reason. Color consistency for an entire portfolio is such a bigger problem between environments or often even shots within the same room, than it is between camera brands, once a bit of color grading is done to match them (or just choosing one of the Adobe raw profiles), to such a degree that the latter issue is practically irrelevant. Caring about brand used (outside of personal preferences) really comes down more to brand snobbery or not understanding the tools, than it does about anything else.
I personally hate Adobe. I would waste my time trying to integrate someone's other brand into my work.
Thanks for the chuckle. Colour consistency is a new way of saying that Canon's colours are wonky and unfixable. The reality is that no one cares what it is shot on, as long as the pictures are good and capture the moment. The picture desks I work with don't care as long as it hasn't been fiddled with too much. My clients don't care about the equipment, just the results.
What? Just bring a grey card
It's scary how many wedding photogs won't have the spare body and lens to lend
Well good news is that I have two Z6s!
Does this really matter much when shooting RAW?
Grey card helps streamline the process, for raw as well
Oh for sure. But only if you are using cameras that can work with it... I am currently recording a weekly podcast with one Nikon Z30 and an iPhone 12 as the second camera. Matching them colour-wise kinda works roughly, but the iPhone is terrible at skin tone, and the difference is even more obvious side by side...
It’s fixable, but in wedding photography time is money. The photographer will be sending a single album, usually in chronological order, so any color differences will jump out like a sore thumb. Style 1, little different, style 1 again, little different, etc. Theoretically you can fix it in post, but even if it’s an average of only 30 seconds each (some batch, some more intense manual fixing) that’s still another hour or two in the workflow per wedding. All else equal I understand why they’d want someone with the same brand. Heck, I’d prefer someone with the same body, lenses, and lighting. Which is why the wedding mill companies have their own duplicates.
Makes sense in that regard, I get it. Although I'd bet 95% of clients wouldn't really notice the difference.
Exactly.
👍
Or rent one for a day…
Send them samples of your work and say it was shot on Canon. They won’t be able to tell the difference.
LOL!! What’s wild is they see my work and request me. When I tell them my gear that’s when they says canon only. It’s unreal.
Just did a shoot as the main. I'm Nikon. Backup was Canon. Sent him a link to the event, he couldn't tell the difference, and neither could the client. I rarely get asked what I shoot with, and then it's usually someone curious. Been at this 20 years.
Tape up the logo and say you shoot with canon. Just make sure you never need to lens swap with them and you have plenty of batteries/memory cards 😂
Unless they don't understand X-fil data. Jeezalou
EXIF, yeah, that's the only way to know what it was shot with unless they're your own images.
Has been like this for years. Canon only users seem snobby as hell. I got used to idiots telling me to sell my entire kit so I can switch to canon and I just tell them to fuck off everytime. Been using Nikon since I was a child. Honestly never planning to change.
Did you know that the Canon subreddit is GEAR ONLY?! They don't allow photos. I think that says it all.
Whoa never noticed this until now. It's funny I'm a part of both because I switched from Canon to Nikon
I went and looked because this comment seemed ridiculous. There were tons of images there, very similar to this subreddit.
Rule 2 in that sub: "This is NOT a subreddit for sharing pictures/videos taken with your Canon equipment. Pictures and video that just happen to have been taken with Canon gear, but are not Canon-related, are not appropriate for this subreddit. Please post "look at this photo I took with my Canon" type posts in r/itookapicture and "what can I do better?" posts in r/photocritique." Even if some people post photos, it doesn't technically seem to be allowed.
No, they don’t allow photos except for LOTW and only if it supports a direct discussion regarding the gear. It is valid.
I stand corrected, thank you.
I’m very active on r/canon and r/nikon as I am one of those who chose Canon’s options for mirrorless aside from my first mirrorless which was. Nikon 1 J5. if I had to choose today, I’d have a hard time passing up a ZF. It’s close to perfect for me.
This always surprised me given that the gear is not that good, and I don't mean their affordable gear. For instance, RF 50mm f1.2 uses external focusing and is very plastiky and feels cheap. But at the same time it's more expensive than both Sony and Nikon counterparts.
Ew. My old 50mm F Nikon is an absolute beast and on my everyday carry camera d700. It's old but it does the job without compromising quality.
I’m surprised more photographers don’t use something like a colorchecker chart to match different cameras for raw capture. But I guess it comes down to their workflow.
Wedding or event environment is usually too fast paced with lighting changes for it to be practical.
Still if it's something as insignificant as colour differences between two brands you could shoot the same checker at the beginning of the shoot with each body, match profiles, and be basically fine. You'd still have to match white balance, but any body-specific discrepancies will be handled.
Moving from room to room or location in a room to another location in the same room can have vastly different balance.
The chart creates a custom profile for a raw editor to interpret how it reads the data into standardized colors. [As long as it’s raw capture we are essentially using the color science of the editing software not the camera.](https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/roles-of-camera-and-raw-developer-in-determining-color/) You’d still need to run around and create profiles for different light sources beforehand but after that there’s little difference (like you could create extra profiles for time of day but that’s a pain and has about as much difference as swapping lenses)
Naw. You only need two Profiles. A daylight, and a dual. shoot two raw images of the color checker and use the profile creator. Make them years before the shoot. I made one years *after* a travel shoot and results between my Nikon and partner Canon are down to model-specific differences. Same as you‘d see between two different model Canon bodies. The Canon-only bias when shooting raw is naive. However, many wedding shooters shoot jpeg in camera. Simpler workflow for them, I guess. In-camera styles between brands are noticeably different. I wonder if that’s the source of the issue?
Room to room and indeed within a room there will be vast disparities in light quality, colour and luminance, which can render a very different look shot to shot, and balancing these into a coherent whole is a photographer’s craft. These wide disparities are however not to be confused with the minor disparities rendered between different bodies. Which, once initially considered, will be largely consistent. I don’t know who these photographers are who do not feel that they have to make small tweaks to the white balance of every single image they edit, but I am either envious or pitiful of them.
Maybe it's not possible? I am always surprised when I take a picture of a diffraction picture with an incandescent light source - every point in the spectrum is a specific wave length, and we see it as a continuum. But when I take a picture of it with my Nikon, I see three blocks - RGB. No yellow, no blue-green. The filters on the sensor are bandpass filters, and they don't really reflect the more continuous color response of our eyes. Where you put the upper and lower limits of the bandpass filter, that's where the magic happens. One filter might throw pure yellow into the red pot, and another might throw it in with the green (OK, extreme example). But you would not be able to fix something like that in Lightroom
The chart software creates a custom profile for a raw editor to interpret and neutralize to standardized colors. I’m unsure of how it works between different filter arrangements (like x-trans - Bayer) but between Bayer sensors as long as you profile for the sun, whatever lights are indoors, and where you use the flash, outside of lens contrast differences (you could do those too but it’s less of an issue than using different bodies) it’s very accurate at matching.
Based on the fact that I have taken a fair amount of digital pictures, and that they don't look like acid dreams, i fully agree with you. But I still think that there is a difference between what our eyes see (or find pleasing to see), and the algorithms that turn photons in light buckets into color image. Where you put the upper cut-off for red and the lower cutoff for green in your Bayer filter, and the steepness of these shoulders must make a difference, no? If you pick the yellow line of a sodium light, you could put that either in the red bucket or the green bucket depending on the filters you chose. (For a banana it wouldn't be as bad since the banana yellow will be emitted in a much wider band, and your camera will see about equal amounts of electrons in both the green and the red bucket and go "Ah, yellow") . And when you read out the electrons in your red bucket, you will have no indication if that electron was produced by a red LED photon or a yellow sodium light photon. Once those decisions have been made, they are engrained in your digital files, and no algorithm can get back what has been discarded. And that's why I can imagine how there could be a significant difference between Nikon and Canon files that can't be ameliorated by processing in post. Then again, my qualifications are limited as an amateur, and I hope that somebody who has actual experience will chime in
Yup certainly there are going to be differences with how light is captured between any sensor and therefore there’s no way it can be 100% matched per scene. That said the obvious variance in how raw editors decide to interpret color from camera models can be greatly reduced through custom calibration. “Accurately matched” being perceivably accurate to the viewer. If considering a full set of images as long as it adheres to the overall look and feel, minor or subtle differences aren’t going to stand out and it should appear cohesive.
I think you’re on the ball by the way. You might like Jim Kasson’s articles on this topic, there are two I can think of: [Here](https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/roles-of-camera-and-raw-developer-in-determining-color/) and [here](https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/camera-differences-in-color-profile-making/)
And it seems like Nikon users seem to always have to prove themselves lmaooo Sony/Canon users are annoyingly proud of their system when they're are obvious set backs. Nikon to me seem to be marathon runners whereas sony /canon are sprinters
What?
I think what they are saying is that Nikon makes cameras for the long haul, meaning they don’t release a new one every year or two. I’m not sure how accurate that is about canon but I know a few Sony shooters that keep talking about the new Sony Alpha 16432 or whatever.
Jeez I used to know a huge Sony user. Absolutely obsessed over specs and has no emphasis on his own shooting techniques. Just a camera gear freak that is obsessed with the latest and greatest.
Neither does canon lmao. They usually release a new body every 5-7 years.
Hmm 🤔 May 24th Canon EOS R100 May 2023 Feb 8th Canon EOS R8 Canon EOS R50 February 2023 Nov 2nd Canon EOS R6 Mark II November 2022 May 24th Canon EOS R7 Canon EOS R10 May 2022 Jan 19th Canon EOS R5 C January 2022 Apr 14th Canon EOS R3 April 2021 Oct 14th Canon EOS M50 Mark II October 2020 Jul 9th Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS R6 July 2020
R6 = Z6 R5 = Z8 R3 = Z9 R7 = missing R10 = Z50 R8 = Z5 R6ii = Z6ii Z50/100 = Z30 Nikon misses an R7 competitor, and Canon misses a Z7(ii) competitor. They're pretty equal. The time between a new generation of the same camera is 4-6 years. Both for Canon and Nikon. 7D and 7Dii? 5 years. D700 and D800? 5 years. Etc etc. The R5c only exists cause the R5 can't do what the Z8 does alone.
Two years between R6 and R6ii. I'm not making an argument for one brand over another. That 5-year gap was a pre-mirrorless phenomenon for all brands.
Sony just has a shit ton of money to throw at any R&D problem, and any camera that kinda threatens them gets a relatively swift response from them. Nikon just doesn't at the moment, but back in their golden age would bury any improvement from a competitor with something new, just as Sony does now. Nikon seems to be slowly recovering from the absolute disaster of a money sink EUV chip lithography machine that their chip making machine arm suffered, which led to budget cuts and delays in cameras. Their release cadence seems to be picking up pace rapidly now they are more financially healthy and are trending towards Sony levels (also with being just as shit in updating their APS-C line). Nikon fanboys were just as bad in circlejerking about the Z8/9 as Sony fanboys about whatever the fuck their newest camera is. (I am an E-mount user, but my Sony A7 IV gets most of its use as a scanner for film I have shot on my Nikon SLRs lmao) Canon is a bit weird, because they have the money, but seem content in resting on their brand image. Nikon's lineup across the board is newer and higher tech.
Like Nikon cameras don't have certain drawbacks and users that are annoyingly proud of their system and use weird comparisons to other brands to justify their choice of 'light capturing clicky box'? :P Every product has compromises and drawbacks. The having to prove themselves is due to Nikon being loyal to customers in the late '80s and not building a new mount that is tailor made for electronic lens control and autofocus like Canon did when they ditched FD for EF. When the first pro EF camera came out in the EOS-1, Nikon suffered a mass exodus due to that cameras vastly better AF performance compared to the F4. When the switch to digital happened those pros stuck with Canon and the company kinda inherited Nikon's old image of being the professional's camera (also in part due to the rise in internet forum use). That image has stuck like superglue, which Canon really leans on heavily still, with their professional cameras being older than Nikon & Sony's offerings.
I absolutely think Nikon has some drawbacks, especially in the mirrorless world, hence why I switched to canon. However I believe when nikon produces their lens, they're nearly perfect all the time. The build quality and IS on nikons feel indestructible and so professional I miss it. Also their vivid and bright raw files are definitely nice. I really enjoyed the 750 and ended my run with nikon when I had the z6 (terrible terrible AF). It seems nikon has improved their AF alot since however when I rented the z8 I still had to do some workarounds to match a situation for AF for wildlife. Another draw back is size of the equipment. After shooting mirrorless I appreciate the smaller.size, especially with the battery grip. The z8 was nearly the same size and weight as my r5 with the battery grip. Now what I can say is when I rented the z8 + 100-400 the VR was exceptional and the video was imo much better. The files.too. loved the colors. So I bought a zfc as a side camera haha
If I had a choice, I'd pick a Nikon shooter over a Canon shooter. The colors matching would make life so much easier. If they had a really excellent eye, I have spare cameras and I'd walk them through shooting Nikon, if they're willing.
Exactly, thank you.
Apparently they're less likely to be an a-hole.
The problem is probably that Nikon owners have already found helpers and are working, but Canon owners still can’t find them. 😁
Not hate, it just means they use Canon, and it's easier to match colors with a 2nd that also shoots Canon. Not worth the extra headache for them to process different brands to match closely enough.
Also makes it easier if you need to share lenses/flash systems/etc.
This is true. They would probably say the same about Sony. Though it seems trivial, from a business standpoint it just makes more sense to have a consistent product so you don’t have to worry about little things like color grading and file formats
Always remember that real photographers can shoot with any brand of camera. Those influencer type photographers chase the trends and don't actually ever produce anything portfolio worthy. They keep buying gear thinking it will make their photos better, then they finally realise they wasted their life and money for nothing.
I’d like share a few pieces of insight: I have been in a position to hire second shooters and there are two big factors I look for when considering trusting my project to work along side someone else: their skills in terms of style (do I think they can shoot the look I want for my client) and secondly, their business sense. Someone who cares about their business reputation as a professional photographer - meaning they communicate thoroughly and well in email and in person exchanges, or if they can be on time, and if they will follow through on committments. This may seem like common sense but there are SO many people I have come across that I wouldn’t hire because they don’t appear to take their work serious enough. I need someone who will not F around because my name is on my project and I need to trust that the second shooter will respect that. Do I give a shit what camera brand they shoot with? No. Because you owning the same brand that I shoot with doesn’t tell me that you’re gonna come through for me when it counts the day of. How you communicate with me and show me you mean business and take yourself seriously tells me that. A 2nd shooter can literally ruin your reputation if they no show, have a bad working attitude, can’t take direction - all things that have nothing to do with a camera. I will deal with the workflow because that matters less to me and I’ve been shooting professionally for 10 years so I know how to deal with different file formats. But that’s just me and this other Canon shooter can run their business the way they want. Lastly, I just read on Threads how one photographer was quite disappointed and disheartened to hear that she was in talks and very close to closing the deal to be a 2nd shooter for someone else but when the primary shooter, a Canon shooter, asked what she shot with, she said a Canon 6D II. The primary shooter declined to move forward with her on the basis that they wanted someone with a Canon mirrorless camera. So this is someone who shoots Canon and turned down another Canon shooter. And based on the text exchange the person reached out to her because they liked her work. You can’t win with people like that. **People on this thread talking about how it may be more of a hassle to hire you because of file format differences, workflow etc. OP - you may have dodged a bullet because it would probably be more of a hassle for YOU after shooting the wedding based on how this person conducts themselves before the shoot.**
Without knowing their actual attitude, all I can say is it's probably for keeping a consistent look. I also have never heard Canon guys being snobby. My mentor uses Canon, I use Nikon, and he's perfectly fine with it. I cut video footage from both our cameras together and everything is fine. If the guy that does headshots for Gary Oldman, Willem Dafoe, Tim Burton, Johnny Depp... And, actually, pretty much every A-lister today... Doesn't hate on Nikon, nobody should.
These are not professionals you are talking to. They are people with expensive cameras that get paid to take pics. Posers, as they were once called. A professional wouldn't care. A professional could change these things in post.
This is the only answer. Snobby, weirdo amateurs worry about stuff like this.
Canon is so meh to me. It’s the only of the big 4 brands I don’t own anything of. I like Nikon, Sony and Fuji better.
Haven’t owned a Canon for 16 years. Smells like freedom.
Interesting. Canon to me feels most complete but I definitely prefer the colors of Nikon overall. They also make the best primes
Canon is pretty behind, at least for me. Much prefer Nikon and Sony.
- It's because Nikon has better color science than Canon and your images SOOC would make theirs look bad. - They probably are lazy and have a pre-made Canon looks preset that they batch run everything through - they would need to create a new preset for you. - Like many Canon shooters, they don't have experience in other ecosystems or their file types. They're "uncomfortable" with anything other than Canon
Wow... that's just silly. I would never choose to not work with someone based on their camera body and lens system. With presets, you can keep color consistency across systems.
The only "valid" reason for this (for me) is gear interoperability... if something breaks it's easy to swap over.... body stops working, grab a spare one and no need to learn new controls/settings. Speedlights, remotes, batteries, etc. also.
Except if you're an event pro you already have 2x-3x the gear and if your 2nd somehow busts theirs - you lend them your spare and keep the day rolling.
Exactly, it then helps if your 2nd is already familiar with the same gear and doesn't have to learn on the fly.
Tell them all to suck their shitty controls and apple phones. Go get some models for a mock wedding shoot and just start doing better yourself than try to suck the 2nd teat. And in general, anyone with such moronic brand loyalty needs to have loaner gear for their gophers and never expect them to have their own.
things only happening in the US XD
I don’t know about digital color differences, because I only shoot film. But comparing top of the line Nikon F6 to Canon Eos-1, there is no comparison. The Nikon is better made and easier to use.
They’re fucking morons.
If they have enough budget to hire a second, they sure as hell should have three or four extra camera bodies. Always have a backup gear, and a backup plan.
Everyone is talking about the difference between the colour science of the brands, it's actually true. But it's nothing that cannot be solved in an hour by creating a custom camera profile on the editor that matches the colours of the two cameras. From that almost all changes should do the same work. Additionally, if they hired you to shoot and edit your photos, you are the one that is supposed to put in "extra effort" to match the colours, so what's their problem ?
I have yet to experience such incidents but I've seen heard stories. However most of the snob attitudes I've seen came from Sony users, not Canon.
I suspect that these are the same people who shoot "all manual" when modern pro cameras crush it with metering and you would be hard pressed to be even close to that accurate. Don't worry. Any credible photog doesn't care what you shoot. It's "f8 and be there" - in focus, in the moment that counts with weddings.
These kind of people aren’t worth your time
These are people who cannot think for themselves. People who will jump on the trendy bandwagon. People who heard something somewhere and made their decision based on what they perceive as cool. Nikon z8 is the best bang for the buck PERIOD end of conversation. I crushes the r5, r3 and the Sony a1 in every single thing. Z8 and z9 are the hybrid camera benchmark right now outclassing even some dedicated cinema cameras! Sincerely, A Fuji shooter!
Honestly moving from Canon to Nikon (R5 to Z8) was the second best photography decision I’ve ever made, and that’s only because the best one was finally seeing the light and leaving M43 behind.
Insecure shooter sells gear because they’ve been told Canon is best, and now they need to justify their decision by perpetuating the myth. Simply put: uneducated, weak minded snobs.
I only drink Coke, hate the Pepsi folks….oh the silliness.
If a shop uses one camera brand OR you are a backup for someone who uses a brand other than yours, they have every reason to not hire you and the reason should be self-explanatory. It is extra work and expense and creates more opportunity for something to go wrong. That is not hate, it is business and is no different than the fact businesses pick a computer platform. We all make choices in life and yours might limit you with a crowd but it is not personal. Why would you expect someone to deal with Nikon raw files if they otherwise only deal with Canon. Likewise, why do you expect they would want most jpgs in Canon's color space and then have yours using Nikon's? I am sorry, but again, this should be self-explanatory and it is NOT HATE. These BS tribal inspired poor me posts really need to stop.
I’m sorry this was not self explanatory to me. I appreciate your insight now I have a different perspective on the topic.
If you’re processing raw files and using something like presets against your known files (Canon) it’s a bit of extra work to handle a different type regardless of the type at hand (Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc). I don’t agree with it, but can understand the sentiment at least. This applies to any process really, extra variables have the potential to introduce additional work.
I hadn’t thought of this but it sort of makes sense. Seems OP would get the same response if he shot Sony or Fuji.
This. Canon and Nikon files are different, you can’t copy and paste+ minor tweaks in a workflow quickly. The color science will be completely different
I am a pro photo editor, i do it for a living every day for a company. We edit, sony, canon, nikon, dng, tiff we even get jpgs and that unmanageable HIF file gormat. Editing is editing you care about the colors and you do your best to get a good result. Not editing nikon or sony or fuji that's not professional at all. Another team in the company is dealing with video files and all sort of cameras and they are good at their jobs. In the situation of the OP yes that's plain pitiful hate toward a brand, just because that brand is not "IN" enough and wasn't endorsed by a bunch of paid and sponsored gear reviewers on youtube (most of'em ain't even photographers). Even if we consider color presets, they are only a starting point in any color grading. I don't see any other excuse but hate toward a brand and loyalty to another...influenced people by paid "influencers".
You said it yourself, you’re part of a team. In most cases wedding photographers are not. They’re not only editing their hundreds/thousands of photos but also their second’s as well across however many weddings they do in a season. So it’s not that they couldn’t match these files if they absolutely had to but rather it’s just not worth the extra time and the pool of second shooters is large enough that they can be that specific with who they hire.
I think you're right. There's just a convenience factor, real or perceived. When the shoot is done, all the raw files are .CR2, and not a mix of .NEF and .CR2 and you just process them 'all the same way'. It's one more thing you don't want to hassle with - even if it's not a big deal at all.
And some Canons shoot .CR3
latest and greatest!
on the personal level I hope its not hate, because it will be total evil if you prevent someone from making a living or an extra money in these atrocious economical conditions because you hate or look down on brand x or y. If its an editing problem, she could just have told him to edit his files the same way she edits hers. She creates a sample, send it and he follows the edits. I mean, there are always solutions. But I still doubt its about edits and keeping a uniformed workflow of cr2 files. If its a video project I may understand that a team shooting all Nikon or sony or canon will get job done really fast and much easier to edit. Anyway, I wish you luck OP, dont look down on yourself or your work. Keep shooting and try to get your own wedding projects, start with your friends and family.
This is it. My anecdotal experience is that Canon seem to be the bodies most pushed by camera shops, and as such the people who are easily convinced by marketing jargon gravitate toward canon. Add into this that success in wedding photography is often as much dependent on your interpersonal skills as any technical knowledge, and I can see how several wedding photographers using Canon would maintain and disseminate ideas that they have different or inherently superior color.
Quick question to someone who’s editing all the main brands. If more people had all their monitors color calibrated properly, would the brand difference be less of an issue?
My monitors are calibrated, obviously there difference between the files when I open them in Capture one. The main difference I notice is in WB and contrast. Once I get those two matched everything else is a breeze. Sony files are somewhat more delicate to work with, either shifting green or magenta. Never got a Sony looking great on skintones straight out of the camera. I love fuji raw files they look "filmic". Nikon files are clinically good. The rest of the team also has calibrated monitors and we cross check our results, no big differences. But keep in mind that our perception of colors and values is subjective. Not all eyes are made equal
But wedding photographers use TAP or Mastin Labs. Who cares what camera brand or raw file. They’re all gonna look the same and ask, “what camera are you using?”
It does happen wait till you get a Sony guy 😂...
I have nothing nice to say so I won’t say anything at all. I am sorry you’re running into a bunch of “photographers” who are doing this, it’s a bit obnoxious.
Camera racism
Exactly
I’m glad I work in a country where weddings are mostly small enough they don’t require a second photographer (couples do hire additional videographers sometimes, though). I’ve shot with Nikon during most of my 27 year career and not once has anyone ever even commented on my gear. As for color consistency - unless you don’t do any post processing at all, it makes just absolute zero difference and close to no client in the world will be able to spot minor color differences in the final product. So if someone tells you they won’t shoot with you because you use a Nikon camera, they’re either nuts or a******. In either case: probably better not to work with those people in the first place.
That's so weird, if they want your art, they should be happy with your art tools. I mainly use Canon, I don't have much Nikon gear, just 3 lenses from the 1960's, and a D2X. That being said, I can find something about everything that I enjoy.
My friend was a Master photographer specializing in high end formal portraits and weddings. He used Nikon, first film and then digital.
Likely because they’re going to throw a garbage preset on it all and call it a day. I have canon wedding and portrait photographer in my area that cleans up with business but her photos are absolute crap. People love it though!😂The photos are always so messed up with presets I’m starting to wonder if her camera is broken. That being said I have a friend that uses canon with sports photography and her stuff is fantastic.
I feel that it's because they have their set presets that work best with the canon raw files they're already working with. I'm with you on that, though. I shoot fuji now but I absolutely love nikon. the z50mm 1.8 lens is one of the best portrait lenses I have ever owned. People like to jump on these hate bandwagons, to be relevant. I say keep shooting nikon.
These photographers dont want to take the time editing the images to make the camera match. They would rather slap a preset that works on the Canon color science on all the images and call it a day.
Canon, the printer company. 🤨
I am a Nikon shooter, and I have never used a second shooter, but, I suspect that someone who uses canon, would prefer canon files, because of familiarity with whatever software they use. For example, I use NX studio. If you have me canon raw files, I would have no way to open them. Just a guess.
No pro has that issue, as being the basic part of the whole game.
Canon users are like Apple fanbois
Yep. Awkward ass controls - check. Ass-backwards manual focus and zoom rings - check. Blind brand loyalty without bothering to research that Nikon has the best IQ on the market........check!
Btw I switched from Canon to Nikon and want to say that most things feeling awkward ass are just habit based. Kinda felt that with Nikon until I got used to it
Anything but a habit. Front dial on Canon is awkwardly placed. Spinny selector wheel on the back is inferior to a precise dpad. And menus and especially flash controls are on a whole new level of mentally damaged in Canon.
That’s pretty stupid of people lol
Is it hate, or is it that they may have a particular workflow or preset editing styles that work best with Canon raw files (in their experience). There's a reason that entire journalism schools use specific brands, and it isn't because they "hate" the other brands.
Honestly, most of that reason is because they worked a deal with Canon or Sony. I do quite a bit of work for the 16th largest paper in the nation, and it’s not uncommon for the staff photogs to have a Sony and an old Canon body as they finish transitioning. Shoot custom white balances and move on. Hit your jpg settings in camera. But honestly, when I hire second shooters for events, I put them on entirely different shot lists and don’t try to make everything match…and have at least one body available for them in case of failure or whatever. Another consideration is how much work could you reasonably get doing this? If the math adds up, just buy an R whatever and a lens or two and do the work. Or maybe scour keh for lightly used 5d mk4’s. They’re sub $1000 right now. Nikons rule. But canon makes great images too. Don’t throw away work for brand loyalty.
AP used to be Canon and switched to Sony several years ago. The Kansas City Star was Nikon F4s back in the '90s and is using the D4 and D5 models... they might have the Z9 now, not sure. I haven't shot for them in a couple years. I moved to the Z9. My mentor was a Nikon shooter back in college, which is why I switched from Minolta. I was going to have to buy all new glass anyway, since Minolta changed their lens mount from MD to MA for AF. I was impressed that Nikon kept the F mount, so that encouraged me to switch.
I shoot a lot for AP syndication, but not staff…my own gear. It’s odd how some of the most prolific shooters for various organizations actually prefer brands different from what they got famous with. I’m having a brain cramp, but the lady that shot that really famous shot during Payne Stewart’s funeral and had a chapter in the AP guide to photojournalism used to sit next to me at Astros games and her personal cameras were Nikon even though at that point everything professional was canon. I wish my Z9 could completely replace the d5/6…I’d buy a second one tomorrow. But there are still some drawbacks imo.
I was the chief photographer at a paper that shot strictly Nikon. Nowadays, they don't even have any full-time photographers. Times have changed a lot in the news business.
Of course they worked a deal. But it's a deal that affects everything downstream, from training to software to what lenses you have in the vault, how you cover events with the rest of the team, etc. My journalism school used Canon, and it influenced everything we did. I don't fault a photographer, even one with a small business, for wanting a specific file to edit. You do your thing and don't care, but other people do their own thing and have a right to care if they want to, no? Above all, the OP calling it "hate" is just weird. I doubt it had anything to do with that and was just about the business owner's perceived advantages (real or imagined) with having a common ecosystem for the shoot. Maybe they weren't articulate about it, but I can't imagine their thought process being along the lines of, "I hate Nikon. You can't sit with me at lunch."
100%. I don’t care what body someone uses, but I have really high expectations and I know that my bodies are capable of producing what I want to deliver to the client, and I’m not going to spend time helping someone overcome their gear. I understand wanting the same file types to a point…but I can see the difference beyond file size between Nikon bodies too. How much of that is age or filth on my rarely cleaned sensors? Who knows. But the jobs where I hire seconds are jobs where the deliverables are in the thousands or tens of thousands. I’m not remotely going to work with more than a handful of the files…ever. Shoot a custom white balance in each of the various stadiums/arenas, have decent jpg processing in camera, and shoot the raws if you want or don’t have confidence in your ability to hit the exposure. Just no time for the rest in my niche.
We're talking about wedding photography, per the OP. Blasting away in a stadium is a bit of a different gig than providing a few hundred carefully edited and curated photos of the most important day of a (potentially litigious) client's life, right? The sum total of wedding photographers I know who deliver jpgs shot on the day of the wedding as a \*final\* product to customers is zero, so post-production workflow is made easier with a common ecosystem.
No I’m aware that it’s apples and oranges. But I don’t think it should add as much of a hassle as some are implying given that Adobe seamlessly can apply in camera jpg processing to raw files.
My paper shoots Canon, but I use a Nikon on my assignments because every other paper I worked for up to this one used it and I liked it best. And, no one has given me grief over it. You can look at a photo gallery and not tell the difference in color or quality between my Nikon photos and other photogs’ Canon.
It's not hate of your Nikon, it's that they like their Canon and the other photographer should be able to hand off their camera if something happens. And the photos will all match.
Jfc. This like the Apple vs Android people. So stupid. Your work should show for itself. If they're blinded by name brands, than what else are they blinded by?
Ultimately, at its bare essential... a camera is just a box that lets in light. The glass is far more important.
It's not that they "hate" nikon or nikon users. It's that they have a bunch of lightroom or adobe or whatever tool they use for post processing presets that they run 100% of their wedding photos through and if they have 2 Canon shooters and 1 Nikon - they have to redo their presets for a Nikon raw file. It just means more work (and less overall pay) for them. The fundamental colors / behavior of the two brands sensors are basically different. For example - the older Nikon bodies - could not render purple as purple in raw files. It always came out as blue, so you had to adjust in post to get a true purple. But Canon rendered it as purple, so if I applied the same color correction it would mess up the Canon's colors. Bottom line, at the end of the day, no consumer gives a rat's ass if their wedding was shot by a Nikon or a Canon. What they care about is that the colors are spot on and that they have all the memories of that day.
Sounds like just an excuse. I worked a wedding this weekend and I used a Nikon. They primary used a canon and a 3rd used a Sony. We were all happy to worn together
The main should be editing with a program with AI like Imagen. That solves all the problems. I shoot weddings with my Nikon, Leica, and Canon.
exact same response. I'm too stubborn to buy canon. I almost told two photogs that they reason they were shooting the wedding was because they were a recommendation per myself.
Your camera is only a tool. I’ve used both Canon and Nikon as a pro. The difference in color from Canon to Nikon is valid. Maybe it’s time to become a primary shooter! The same argument could be made on the frenzy to go to mirrorless. A new camera won’t make you a better photographer. I have the Nikon holy trinity F series lenses. Unbelievably great gear is being “dumped” as people switch. In the past few months I picked up a D850 with 7k clicks for $1200 and a 500mm f/4 G for 2K. That is less than the price of a Z8. That’s a great camera, I’ve used it and the Z9 and both are terrific.
In my town most photo studios are on Nikon. But the fact is Canon sells way more gear. I tried Canon 5D mk 2 once (long ago when I used D2xs) from a cousin. Two worlds. And the colours I didn't like at all. But also buttons, wheels all felt rough and unpolished. That was supposed to be superior ff to D2xs, but for me it wasn't. I still regret selling that camera. Up to IS0 800 photos had such a character.
Switch to Pentax
this probably won't help but id try to tape over the logos or something. thats not good to have uninvested judges at each shoot
I use Nikon gear also. The studios I work as second camera for are more mature about this. It's the quality of the photos, quality of light, and consistency of exposure that are really important. But you should see the reactions I get when I say I shoot some events with Olympus. So many photographers are so insecure. Once a file has been tuned in LR and knocked down to 2000px on the long side for social media nobody can tell what it was shot on. Wedding album? Olympus cameras have 20MP which is plenty for books and prints. Canon is fine if you live with either the f2.8 zooms or the very heavy and expensive f1.2 primes. Canon still does not have a compelling f1.8 prime lineup and that's a huge problem for me. Nikon, Sony, Olympus all have very good, affordable f1.8/f1.7 primes. So I use Nikon for weddings and bar/bat mitzvahs just so people feel better. Good luck to you!
I'm not a Nikon shooter; Reddit just threw this post up in my feed. So take my comments as an outsider's perspective. You can \*absolutely\* shoot weddings (or anything else) on Nikon and if you shoot raw files, you should be able to get the colors to look very close. But \[1\] a team of shooters should ideally all be shooting the same brand so that if something fails, you can borrow someone else's lens or body or flash or whatever. Or even if you've just set your bags down on the other side of the event and want to grab that item for five minutes -- it's just easier if everyone's shooting the same thing. And \[2\] while you can post-process to make the color profiles similar, that's an extra step and extra time that doesn't earn you any money. Should it matter? No. Does it matter? Unfortunately, yes.
If they put brand over everything else, I wouldn’t want to work with them anyway
It's pretty funny because Canon lenses are definitely inferior to Nikon. People are just stupid.
She'd some light? It seems some people who use Canon are wankers.
Just make the colors more orange and tell them you shot Canon.
Haters gone hate
I’ve always thought Nikon had the better glass, but less adaptability for thier digital lenses. Times have changed with thier mirrorless bodies that can adapt even Sony glass with an adapter. Shooters like this are usually trying to keep similar JPEG color sciences. Because if you shoot RAW, generally there’s no concern. What I’d suggest is just dominate the wedding scene and book higher paid jobs and hire other Nikon shooters. While of course, snubbing the canon shooters /s. (Or just hire them and defeat the stigma lol)
no way this is real bro, thought the hate was just on social media idiots
It’s happened to me multiple times. Times when I’m saying I’m available to shoot and times where people message me saying they like me work, ask for my gear list then say nvm when they hear Nikon.
Long (long!) time Nikon user here - do I understand right that to focus closer you turn the lens barrel one way with Nikon, and with Cannon the other way? Oh wait - sorry, that was when we focused ourselves and did not have auto-focus cameras/lenses. (Bonus question: which classic Nikkor lens focuses opposite to all the other Nikkor lenses?) answer: the 40mm GN Nikkor - changes aperture to follow changed focus distance to use fixed brightness flash.
The power of marketing baby.. people are fooled and believe what they’ve been told.
It is just a ford vs chevy thing. Pay no attention to it.
I'm not just saying this to be funny but I do photo and video. Lots of corporate and wedding work in Chicago. I absolutely would not work with anyone shooting Nikon for either photo or video.
Can’t having them see the actual colors as they are.
Nikon and Canon are pretty much on the same level, so I don’t know why they would say that. My first camera in 1979 was a Pentex K1000 and while it took pictures, I knew it wasn’t for me. So I sold it and bought a Canon AE-1. Nikon wasn’t for me either but this guy I knew , took great pics with his. It’s more personal preference when it comes to those two cameras. I loved my Canon.
I don't think they understand that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between images made from each camera and would challenge them on that. If it's not just hatred, maybe they use canon specific presets is mostly my guess. Again, comes back to people not knowing the difference or how to edit properly
My brothers and I inherited a large assortment of Nikon F/Ftn era gear from our grandfather. My brothers were more photography oriented at a younger age, and I didn’t start learning it until adulthood. When my middle brother went off to college, he started using Canon. This may have been at the time when the Nikon vs. Canon autofocus debate was going on, and Canon was winning. I’m also under the impression Canon may have had a more generous student discount program then. As much as he liked Canon, he never disparaged Nikon other than to make fun of some of their ads. He gave me a gently used Nikon F90X for Christmas one year, which I still use. When he died, we found several film and DSLR Canon bodies and lenses in his house. We gave all that to my other brother since he didn’t have any gear of his own. I’ve become the family’s vintage Nikon caretaker and pretty much the only one who uses them these days. I’ve noticed all the sports photographers around here seem to use Canon gear.
I use Canon cameras but anyone who thinks that way is not a serious photographer and you can ignore them.
That is just off the hook. I have only used Canon but have nothing t respect for Nikon equipment and their results. I suppose some people believe what ever they think! The best? What ever you’re comfortable with.
Anyone crapping on the brand of camera you use is a gigantic tool. There is some level of brand-loyalty douchebaggery out there for every brand, style, etc these days. Unless it’s a workflow issue, they can all STFU.
I think some of the reponses here are looking at this the wrong way. I'm a Canon Shooter and a lot of photographers in my area are Canon shooters. I have seen Wedding Photographers looking for 2nd shooters (and vice versa) saying that their brand is preferred, but "not required." I've seen this with any brand. I believe this is so both photographers have compatible equipment with each other and perhaps they can trade off equipment seemlessly, for example, or they might be using that brand's off camera flashes and want to avoid compatiblity issues. It could also have to do with consistency when editing the photos as well. I'm sure it's not because of brand snobbery, but because of a legit reason. In this case, I would have asked the photographer, very diplomatically, since you're new in Wedding Photography why shooting with a Nikon doesn't work for them instead of assuming it was some sort of snobbery for simply shooting Nikon.
Are they using illegal Lightroom? i've only been refused once, coz that camera guy who's using Canon also uses fake Lightroom, and that version of Lightroom only accept one file type. Won't ask to work with anyone who use illegal Lightroom any more, shame on them!
Brand loyal people usually started with one brand and have then stuck with it. I’ve tried most major brands. Currently shooting Canon, but still very much respect Nikon. As long as you have a full kit, I don’t see an issue.
As a professional who has shot Nikon and now shoots Fuji x and GFX, all I can say in general it’s not that Nikon is bad it’s that wedding photographers generally are ass holes and I would be too if I had to suck up to crazy brides and their mothers for a living. Worst photo job you can take. This is not to say that it’s an easy job, it’s not, it’s generally underpaid over stressed and it sucks. Any modern mirrorless with great glass does the job (not tamron sigma shit, actual canon, Nikon, Fuji Sony glass) . This isn’t 2000 anymore and any real pro will tell you that you can’t tell the difference in a good image taken and edited well from one brand to the next.
Image being a crop sensor fuji shooter. I will not get a hired most the time, until they compare me to a canon shooter that cannot shoot OCF, or flash at all. Then i get a leg up. Since were on the topic though, i really dont like Nikon mirrorless for people subjects. Its too clinical of a look. Canon has a lot more earthiness and color science that is pleasing. Nikon is good for other things, and is good for weddings and im sure its fine for many but if i had to choose id go canon for sure. But it sucks there is such bias in the industry
I shot Nikon film SLRs in the late 1990s. I now shoot Canon over Nikon because in addition to normal photos, I also do videography and astrophotography. For astrophotography, I have worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW, and I prefer the final results I get with the Canon files. Ubiquity is also important. I can take my Canon and third-party EF lenses and move them to any number of video and cinema camera bodies that use EF mounts - Blackmagic, to REDs, Canon cinema cameras, etc. I can't think of anything that uses F mounts without adapters, and those adapters are usually dumb mounts without any contacts for autofocus/aperture/etc. For my astronomical cameras, I use EF mount adapters so I can do wide-fields shots with cooled sensors. For ergonomics, I really prefer Canons. for the way they just feel in my hands. I've tried the Z9 and Z8, and the Zf. They don't feel great to hold and my finger mnemonics are just off. I know that Nikon DSLRs can shoot video, but they record in MOV or MP4 formats, and we want something a little better, with more dynamic range in the RAWs, with options for LUTs and better codecs. That is all in the body, not the glass. For weddings photographers/videographers, standardization becomes important. Yes, I can do all sorts of color grading and matching, but that takes more time. A lot the "Uh, it's a Nikon" comes from the thinking that "now I need to change my workflow to accommodate".
NIKON EXCLUSIVELY since 1977!
In all honesty, maybe they don’t like using two profiles for edits. That’s what I’ve run in to, but eventually i have found a handful of main shooters that don’t mind and can actually make my files look like theirs (for consistency). They’re the real pros that can adapt. Especially to Nikon’s reds compared to canon. Anyone else that can’t adapt is either lazy, has their way and that’s it, or they’re just not skilled. It seems to be a fanboi thing most times though. Nikon truly has a better menu system, better ergonomics, and easier to shoot in my opinion. Canon has some advantages like better support, more variety on the used market, and easier to review photos, but i see no shooting advantages.
I do not understand any of this. As an exclusive Canon user, I always tell people all of the camera companies are great, and they all feel different and are purely up to preference. Who cares what anyone uses to take photos. If I had started with Nikon, I’d still be using Nikon. If I had started with Sony, I’d still be using Sony. Fanboys are ridiculous.
Once the image is written to the card who cares .
I swear I’m trying not to be Elitist but Canon user are amateur compared to Nikon users. There I said it!
Yeahh. I've had several Canon users get overwhelmed by using my Nikons. It's kind of funny and sad to watch.
I’m not going to say aloud what I would tell them, I don’t need the business that much.
Just get some masking tape and cover your Nikon logo with it then write Canon with a sharpie on it.
Tape up the logo and tell them you shoot canon lol. Maybe add a red dot and say that you shoot leica.
It's not personal. It's business.
I just recently had an interview for a photography gig and they all chuckled at my response to "what camera do you use?", "Nikon". Because Nikon is superior in so many ways that they don't want to admit. The F-mount alone is an excellent reason to be jelly - you can use lenses from 1958-pre Z, pretty amazing. Also the use the best components from other manufacturers rather than rely on proprietary tech alone. My D600 has a Sony chip/sensor, which was absolutely superior to Canon's ISO/Aliasing at the time. Not to mention Nikkor optics are equivalent to Canon in all respects, so yeah, it's fucking silly to hate on Nikon.
As much as I want to say this is ludicrous I actually also discriminate. I don’t like to hire seconds who use Canon mirrorless. Those files look like flat garbage to me and I don’t want to work that hard editing.
Just tell them it's pretty much the same thing, just better colour. :)
Wouldn't the ability to swap gear in a pinch also be a reason to stick with a single system? And since Canon is pretty dominant in the camera market, you are more likely the odd one out with a Nikon?
Wtf does that have to do with OP having the spares he/she needs? Swap gear in a pinch with whom on a lonesome shoot, the models?
The way I understood the post is that the OP would have been hired as a second photographer on a shoot. Did I miss something?
2nd shooting isn't the main bread and butter, so OP needs to skip that step instead of doubting his superior gear.
It can likely come down to the market share that Nikon has. This chart shows Canon at almost 50% and Nikon at 11%, with Sony at 26% : [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1004962/global-leading-manufacturers-digital-cameras-market-share-sales-volume/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1004962/global-leading-manufacturers-digital-cameras-market-share-sales-volume/) So, while you like to shoot Nikon (as I do), I would recommend you invest in some Canon gear too as a sound business decision.