Why are we so "brand loyal"?

I'm a long time Canon user. My workhorses are the 1DII and the 5DII as well as the 5D.

I'm able to do everything I want except work at wide angles at the level that Nikon shooters can with the 14-24. Of course, I could follow the use of the 14-24 with a Nikon to Canon adapter and use the lens in manual mode as does Nicolas Claris. I've seen his architectural work with this lens and am so impressed.

Frankly, apart from one of two unique Canon lenses, if I was starting out (and was prepared to carry the new Nikon flagship), I'd cross over immediately. The Nikon D700 with Nikon lenses would be an improvement from the 5DII and Canon lenses even though I'd give up on the 21 MP of the 5DII for 12 MP. Likely I'd gain faster focus and better wide angle lenses and that's more important. For long lens low light work, the result should be better with the Nikon, just my impression.

Why is it that we are brand loyal? It puzzles me!

Asher

I have no loyalty but lots of laziness. There would have to be something unique in another system that would make a significant change in my photography for the better, not just some incremental improvement in resolution, contrast, or whatever. What I have works well enough, I'm not about to follow the Pied Pipers of technological progress.

(My usual personal example is Turbo Tax. I used it for years and years. Several years ago Intuit screwed up by installing some flaky copy protection that made several reviewer's lives difficult. I read about it before buying that version. I bought another program that works okay and I have no reason to ever switch back unless my current provider does something really stupid too.)

I'm not brand loyal for pretty much anything. I like Chevys and I like Fords, I like Canon and I like Nikon. But right now I happen to be driving a Ford and shooting with a Canon. I've shot with Nikons, and they seem nice, but If I wanted to own a Nikon camera, I'd have to selling what I have in Canon, and that would be a big hassle and a waste of money. That's the only reason I shoot Canon right now, is because that's what I started out with, and that's the lenses and other equipment that I have.

If all of my 35mm equipment were stolen and I had to start out new, I don't know which one I would go for. Maybe Nikon, but I like having the ability to adapt lenses onto the Canon cameras, so I might stick with Canon for that reason. I wouldn't be let down by either system i think. Though, I do like my f/1.2 85mm

Daniel Buck said:

I'm not brand loyal for pretty much anything. I like Chevys and I like Fords, I like Canon and I like Nikon. But right now I happen to be driving a Ford and shooting with a Canon. I've shot with Nikons, and they seem nice, but If I wanted to own a Nikon camera, I'd have to selling what I have in Canon, and that would be a big hassle and a waste of money. That's the only reason I shoot Canon right now, is because that's what I started out with, and that's the lenses and other equipment that I have.

If all of my 35mm equipment were stolen and I had to start out new, I don't know which one I would go for. Maybe Nikon, but I like having the ability to adapt lenses onto the Canon cameras, so I might stick with Canon for that reason. I wouldn't be let down by either system i think. Though, I do like my f/1.2 85mm

Click to expand...

I could have written that paragraph - I love the 50 1.2 and the 85 1.2 is on my wishlist. Asher, if you want to shoot wide with your Canon, Sigma makes a 12-24 for the 5d and 1dsMk2. It's a nice lens - even Nicolas was using it for sometime. I rarely use it, but it wasn't expensive by L glass standards and it's very sharp.

Kathy Rappaport said:

Asher, if you want to shoot wide with your Canon, Sigma makes a 12-24 for the 5d and 1dsMk2. It's a nice lens - even Nicolas was using it for sometime. I rarely use it, but it wasn't expensive by L glass standards and it's very sharp.

Click to expand...

Kathy,

The work I've seen from Nicolas Claris with his 14-24mm nikon on the 1DsII is nothing short of spectacular. The lens can render lines, oblique or orthogonal at 14 mm with no noticeable distortion! Seriously, this is a new league for 35 mm architectural photography. Frankly, I'm blown away!

Asher

I don't feel brand loyal. A camera is a tool, anyway.

While some might have invested in a big canon lensline, thus trying to avoid a jump, my adapted Zeiss lenses (Contax) are not adaptable to the Nikon mount.

As I like that zeiss look so much...

Asher Kelman said:

Kathy,

The work I've seen from Nicolas Claris with his 14-24mm nikon on the 1DsII is nothing short of spectacular. The lens can render lines, oblique or orthogonal at 14 mm with no noticeable distortion! Seriously, this is a new league for 35 mm architectural photography. Frankly, I'm blown away!

Asher

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm over the top here! I'll wait to see if Nicolas corrected the image I saw! So, architects and engineers, don't all rush out to get the Nikon lens on my account, at least not just yet!

Asher

Still, the N 14 - 24 does extremly well with distortion in the 17 - 24 mm-range.
But it has some at 14.

Asher,

The answer to your question is in your original post...switching cost (lens inventory and lost shots due to unfamiliar interface).

Michael Fontana said:

Still, the N 14 - 24 does extremly well with distortion in the 17 - 24 mm-range.
But it has some at 14.

Click to expand...

Michael,

That's not surprising. Still, it looks like Nicolas found the sweet spot!

Asher Kelman said:

Kathy,

The work I've seen from Nicolas Claris with his 14-24mm nikon on the 1DsII is nothing short of spectacular. The lens can render lines, oblique or orthogonal at 14 mm with no noticeable distortion! Seriously, this is a new league for 35 mm architectural photography. Frankly, I'm blown away!

Asher

Click to expand...

Clarification: from Nicolas Claris:

"I didn't say it was shot @ 14mm, in fact I don't remember, maybe 16mm… that's the bad thing (already stated) the camera doesn't read the lens infos, EXIF is even wrong, though AF confirm works pretty well!

I haven't used any correction for lens distortion (just checked ;-) and this is a FF without one pixel being cropped."

So this lens is indeed remarkable and a major addition to the architectural photographer's arsenal!

Asher Kelman said:

Maybe I'm over the top here! I'll wait to see if Nicolas corrected the image I saw! So, architects and engineers, don't all rush out to get the Nikon lens on my account, at least not just yet!

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher
The image you saw had no lens distortion correction. It is a question of positionning the camera towards the lines… I have to admit that I can't remember if this shot was at 14 or 16mm… as the EXIF is alzheimerized!

On some other images I had to do a very slight correction in CS4 (PT lens cannot do as it can't read false EXIF, it recognizes the camera (which BTW is a 1Ds3 and not 2) but cannot accept it wears a Nikkor lens: LoL)
But we're getting off topic.

I remember in the old times of Rob Galbraith forum, where I did create a thread Nikon to Canon as I wanted to switch to get a FF cam…
So as Daniel mentionned, I had to sell all my Nikkors and the Nikon 1Dx as well to buy the Canon 1Ds suite…
No regrets at all. BUT if as also said by Daniel, my gear went to be stolen, I 'm not sure I would not go back to Nikon (now that they have FF bodies). For sure I would do hard compare tests before making any decision!

So I'm not so loyal, I'm obliged to, which is quite a difference! Hence I have no problem -and maybe some pride ;-) - to have a Nikkor mounted on a Nikon!!!

I have been shooting with Canon cameras for 30+ years. The story goes back to my college days. As a genuinely impoverished undergraduate I had saved about $150 to buy a good 35mm camera. (That was no small feat.) I had my eye, and heart, set on a Nikon...who didn't in the 1970's? The magic day finally came. I marched into Erber's Camera Store in Champaign, IL only to be told by a rather imperious clerk (probably the owner) that I couldn't afford a Nikon. I could, however, get a Canon TLb and a 50mm lens. Done! That camera and lens became my companions for the next 10+ years and I've never even held a Nikon camera since then.

I've never considered my feelings as "loyalty", per se. Canon has always had the products that I needed when I needed them. Their cameras and lenses have also never let me down. Ditto Leica, which I began using MUCH later in life. There is simply nothing I cannot image with my Canon and Leica cameras an lenses. I've assembled everything I need, and even everything I want, and don't spend (too) much time on gear.

I believe that bigger, and more salient notion here is that of stability rather than loyalty. Digital photography has created a constant din of camera changes due mainly to the fact that changing the imaging medium now requires changing the whole damn camera, not just the film. For all of its advancements this has really worked against amateur photographers' self-improvement interests. People (guys, basically) just aren't giving themselves enough time to become adept with their current camera before changing to a new model or, in some cases, a whole new system.

One of the most pervasive characteristics that you'll find in genuinely great photographers is the relative stability of the cameras and lenses they've used. You cannot hope to master your craft until you've mastered your tools.

Ken,
with stability you hit the nail.

In my early days of digital imaging, I tried out many things.

These days, I opt much more for that stability - I don' need these updates every month, not the newest plugin xy, but rather prefer to know and feel a lens really well.

Ken Tanaka said:

For all of its advancements this has really worked against amateur photographers' self-improvement interests. People (guys, basically) just aren't giving themselves enough time to become adept with their current camera before changing to a new model or, in some cases, a whole new system.
...You cannot hope to master your craft until you've mastered your tools

Click to expand...

Ken,
As always, you have managed to descibe it perfectly.
I always look forward to reading your posts.
As a rank amateur, I chased technology rather than the pursuit of learning the craft.
The next "best" camera would certainly make me a better photographer, would it not?
Sadly, no.
I came to realize my images were mediocre.
Moreover, what I needed to truly accept was the fact my equipment wasn't lacking, it was my effort.
So began my self-imposed hiatus from this forum, with a promise not to return with images until I could honestly descibe how and why they were made.
I'm re-learning how to shoot and how to see.
I sincerely hope other amateurs consider a similar path.
It has been enlightening, and I'm a better photographer for it.

Michael Fontana said:

Ken,
with stability you hit the nail.

In my early days of digital imaging, I tried out many things.

These days, I opt much more for that stability - I don' need these updates every month, not the newest plugin xy, but rather prefer to know and feel a lens really well.

Click to expand...

I agree, but that for me has revolved around mostly one focal length. I used the 50mm Super Takamur Multicoated 1.4 lens with my Spotmatic for 10 years. The same with my Canon film cameras even though I had some zoom lenses I never used. The greatest fun I've had is with the 50mm Macro and now the 50mm f1.2 L. However for models and portraits and groups the 24-105 and mainly the 70-200 lenses comes into play.

I just went to Europe sandwiching a vacation on either side of a wedding shoot in a village near St Moritz. For travel pictures I used the humble G10 and for the wedding just the 50 1.2L on the 5DII with a 50 1.8 and the 24-105 as back up but never mounted on the camera!

So I agree with consistency. That's what allows one to get a feel as to what can be expected.

Still, with more events in Los Angeles and a social wish to be less intrusive, I'm now using the 70-200 2.8L IS as the standard event lens. I can get all the pictures I want but from a distance. Also for performance shots in a concert, of course before they play and immediately afterwards, the 70-200 is the only lens possible. Again consistency.

I guess I'm loyal more to focal length, aperture and to my checkbook than to camera brand.

Asher

I AM brand loyal. In 1983 I walked into Reseda Camera over on Sheman Way iirc to buy a Canon AE-1 Program camera like the one my father-in-law had just won in a contest. We were poor as church mice but my bride was spending hard earned cash on portraiture of our new family. We had 3 baby girls.

Money in hand and it seemed like a LOT of money to me, the salesman there said, that Canon is over-rated. I can sell you a Nikon FG for the same $$ and it's the better camera. What did I know?? Paul Simon didn't sing about Canon's, he sang about his Nikon. So I walked out of the store with a Nikon camera and a gawd-awful 5star something or other 28-85mm zoom lens. The lens was truly awful and it took me 10 more years to pick up the camera and begin to figure out what I needed to make decent photographs.

Years later my mother gave me her Canon AE-1 camera for one of the girls, now grown. What a pile of crap. By that time I actually had learned how to make photos and aperture priority was my friend. My best friend. Canon had gone down a different road (shutter priority) which seemed obtuse to me at that point. And so the love affair with Nikon was confirmed.

I've gone down a much different road than most here, (large format / soft focus) but for ebay snap shots, I love my D200. Hell I shot a wedding with it weekend before last and the folks got exactly what they paid for. Oh, they didn't pay me.

Thank you for giving me my therapeutic laugh of the day, Jim!

You are "brand loyal"? Jim, your photography has barely made it into the 20th century. Photography is, by its very nature, retrospective. But your photographic tools, subjects, and methods seem positively archeological. Your devotion is clearly to the brand "old". I wouldn't have been surprised if you had written that your brand loyalty was toward "Louis Daguerre".

More power to ya, Jim, but you sure did make me laugh!

Ken Tanaka said:

Thank you for giving me my therapeutic laugh of the day, Jim!

Click to expand...

Second that!

Ken Tanaka said:

You are "brand loyal"? Jim, your photography has barely made it into the 20th century.

Click to expand...

Unquestionably!

Ken Tanaka said:

Photography is, by its very nature, retrospective.

Click to expand...

That Ken is a very interesting statement. It's so simple, succinct and wrapped up. It appears self-evident and profound. Still I'm troubled by its apparent unassailable truth.

Asher

Ken Tanaka said:

Photography is, by its very nature, retrospective.

Click to expand...

And in that, seemingly,, simple statement is wrapped up a whole world of meaning.

Why are photos sad? Because they remind us of that we cannot bring back - the moment gone for ever.

Mike

John Angulat said:

...So began my self-imposed hiatus from this forum, with a promise not to return with images until I could honestly descibe how and why they were made.

Click to expand...

Hi John,

I for one have been wondering where you've been hanging out recently. Now I know and I applaud your efforts to improve your photography. But as you must know already all images are welcome here good or bad as long as the poster is seeking honest C&C and ways to improve his/her work. It is a pity that you are now being too harsh on yourself, just show of us some work in progress every now and then please.

Cheers,

Damn, found out again. I guess the truth is I'm not really very brand loyal. I get equally excited about Cooke, Ross, Dallmeyer, Voigtlaender, Darlot and Hermagis. Not much of a Zeiss man. Goerz is consistent but unexciting. All these were the Duesenberg, Packard, Cadillac, Isotta Fraschini, and Bentley of their day but I love them all. Ken is exactly right.

Jim Galli said:

Damn, found out again. I guess the truth is I'm not really very brand loyal. I get equally excited about Cooke, Ross, Dallmeyer, Voigtlaender, Darlot and Hermagis. Not much of a Zeiss man. Goerz is consistent but unexciting. All these were the Duesenberg, Packard, Cadillac, Isotta Fraschini, and Bentley of their day but I love them all. Ken is exactly right.

Click to expand...

Well Jim; I think you are very brand loyal but not to a specific brand as such ;-). For the rest, agree with you and Ken fully.

Cheers,