Nikon, Fuji, Sony, Canon - who cares?You don't go to a fine dining restaurant, have a wonderful meal and then ask the chef what brand of oven he used.... :-)
Indeed - but I do get asked about brands I just wanted to give some context to the answer next time. I'm quite happy with people asking questions, since it often gives me ideas for these short videos.
I find that an odd question to ask a professional photographer. Maybe it's just me. Anyway, I'm with Nikon because way back in the day when I was buying my first DSLR, the Nikon D80 had the 18-200 VR lens, which as a beginner seemed a great lens to cover lots of things. It served me well for years. After that, never saw the point in changing systems. Even when I went mirrorless. Unless you have very particular requirements, most camera systems are much the same. :-)
I don't understand shooters that jump around from one ecosystem to another. I suppose if you 1) have money to burn or 2) have gotten in some situation where companies will just send you stuff, it's a LOT of money to change from one system to another, and you're never going to get your cost in back from reselling. I started using Canon for a simple reason: I had a friend that shot Canon, so I could borrow lenses until I could get my own. I've recently gotten my first mirrorless, and I had to spend an extra $100 to be able to use my same glass. I don't have a single RF lens (because I'm broke), but I'm in the same "family," so I'm still doing just fine. Again, unless Nikon or Sony decides to drop me a full kit to change, I don't see it happening. It's not a brand issue for me, just a matter of where I'm at and where I started.
40 years ago, I chose Canon because I'm left eye dominant. I wanted the equivalent Nikon but the power switch was built into the film advance lever. The lever had to be 15 degrees from normal and poked me in the nose or right eye when looking through the finder with my left eye. In the 2000s I went to Nikon's F5 for sports photography and went to the D810 in the 20teens. The nice thing is I have some great D glass from the F5 that I use on the D810 and great G glass that I use with the F5. My favorite frivolous kit is my Mamiya RZ67 kit for studio and landscape. I never have gotten rid of any of my kits and it's still nice to use them all. Kinda like having lunch with an old friend.
The Nikon F mount was rhe reason why I went and stayed with Nikon. I started out with cameras like the Nikormat and I was impressed with how Nikon maintained backward compatibility with their lenses nearly all the way back to the beginning of the SLR. I have about a dozen manual F mount lenses and about a dozen AF F mount lenses. Over the years, I have kept this collection of lenses, but I have bought and sold many different models of camera bodies, right up to the point where Nikon stopped making DSLR’s and went mirrorless. I still have my Nikon system and still use it. But for mirrorless cameras, I have gone to Fujifilm.
Yes - solid reasons. It's the people who chop and change just spending money in a forlorn hope it will 'improve' their photography who I'm perhaps taking aim at ;-) :-)
Thanks for sharing your journey with cameras. It is not the company it is the images that matter to me too. I started with a Rich KR-30sp back in the 1980s. Switched to Canon with the 1d Mark I and 5d Mark II with the EF mount, then on to the R5 Mk1 and 2 for RF mount which is what I am currently using. Wasn't about anything other than it was the best equipment for me at the time.
As someone who used to shoot Nikon (D800 / D850) with Nikon's PC-E lenses, I agree. The Canon lenses are more modern and better, mainly due to the size of the lens mount. I now adapt Canon lenses on my GFX cameras and love it. I do really like the Nikon Z cameras, been testing the Z7II and even purchased an adapter to mount the TSE lenses on the Nikon Z, works great, but can't compete with my GFX cameras for architecture.
Yes, the 19mm PC-E shows what could be done optically, but as you say, the F mount was limiting. I'm hoping to get a GFX back again for some more testing with adapted lenses...
Personally, I prefer Sony and that is partly because my father bought a Sony A100 and I thought it was a great camera. But also that I had some nice lenses from my old Minolta 7000 which at the time were really good lenses and fit the Sony A100 therefore I still use Sony. But basically it doesn't matter which manufacturer you prefer because the camera is just a tool to show other people a picture you've seen. Then it is up to everyone to use the brand they like. As a famous photographer once said It's not the camera that makes the picture, it's the person behind it, those were the words of Ansel Adams.
I’m relatively new to photography, only doing my thang since 2015 or so. I never understood why people get so up in arms about which brand you use to do what. I’m a car guy and it reminds me so much of that. Cliques, and leagues, and posses, and crews. Seriously, shoot what you shoot, have fun. A good photographer with an iPhone will outshoot a normie with a 102MP medium format camera any day.
Yes, I still get bits of the 'brand stuff' every so often when I do talks at camera clubs [which I do enjoy]. My usual response is not to understand the question ;-)
Pleased to have found your channel. I was read an article by yourself about TSE lenses many years ago that made me purchase Canon cameras after all my Pentax gear was stolen. I have had a long sabbatical from photography after personal loss took away my enthusiasm for it. My gear is relatively old (5Dmk ii) but still have my TSE 17,24 and the old 90 which is my all time favourite lens and the 180 macro. Watching this has made me realise that it isn’t necessary to purchase loads of new gear and I should just get out there with what I have. Lost my Mum a few months ago and opposite to my previous losses it has given me the impulse to get back into photography once again.
Glad it's been of interest. A similar situation last year has reminded me that I wasn't getting out enough for my own enjoyment of photography [even though I do enjoy the work I do]
Saying the F mount is too small and limiting is dismissing the historical point of staying with the F mount in the DSLR age. The point being that the F mount was designed early on in the 35mm film days and has been very successful, and moving into the digital age with DSLRs beginning with APS-C sensors F mount lenses covered it perfectly. Once Nikon came out with FX sensors it was back to normal returning back to the 35mm frame box. The best part about it is that the F mount allows one to still use 50 year old legacy lenses natively all the way back to Ai and Ai-S and with mid to high tier DSLR bodies the use of body driven AF-D, and if you have the Nikon Df you are able to flip up the Ai coupling tab to accept even earlier Pre/Non Ai lenses without having to physically convert the lens. That is one thing I wished Nikon could have included in the D(xxx) and D(x) series mounts, the flip up Ai coupling tab. I had the chance 15 years ago to get int the EF system but found Canon to have inferior DR for what I wanted to do so I stuck with Nikon not only for its reputation of DR and true color straight out of camera but for all those legacy lenses I bough back in the 70s and 80s. Now my workhorse is the D850 and every generation F mount lenses I have works brilliantly on it (except my 1960s Non-Ai), so I see no reason to go Canon as great as their top tier EF glass is.
Perfectly valid historical perspective - for those interested in old glass. However, most people are not remotely so interested (their loss IMHO ;-) ] Going forward, Nikon bit the bullet and moved on past it with Z. Good choice I'd say, having read some of their info about the new mount.
@@KeithCooper true! I did get a Z5 when it came out and have yet to purchase a Z lens, I've been adapting my F lenses because I like the option of the cameras IBIS with my collection. I have not yet have the need to replace any lenses but from what I've seen the Z glass rendering is very amazing, maybe too good because the difference I've seen is the high end F (G and D series) lenses are stunning as well but has a different, more pleasing depth and character that I only see in a couple Z primes at 2 to 3 times the cost.
I switched to canon from Nikon in about the same era you are talking about. I shot Nikon Film cameras I think it was N70 until the camera literally died in the middle of a shoot. I had gotten a canon D20 earlier to play with astounding 8mp. I had a tamron zoom on it. And was discovering I liked the pictures comming out of it. But all my lenses at the time were Nikon, so when came time to upgrade, I went with Nikon. It was a 15mp crop sensor the results drove me crazy everything seemed soft compared to both my N70 but more so the little canon. My friend at the time (a pro photographer with many magazine covers to her credit) couldn’t understand the problem I was seeing… but since she was shooting with the same camera, I made her a deal to sell her mine. And I switched to Canon. That was a killer financial hit when I did it. But instantly my shots looked sharp and crisp again. And I never looked back.
Keith, thank you for all your very informative videos and articles, I have quickly become an avid follower of yours. You gave a very solid piece of advice at the start of the video, somewhat indirectly linked to the main subject, and which should be set in stone. It is "Keep your raw files", which I have very recently realised the importance of. The evolution of software is giving new life to raw images shot and saved many years ago. I am finding more and more interest in going back and rework old files. This has also taught me that even digital cameras can last a lot longer than the general perception is. Ten or so years old camera technology is still relevant today, as you are witnessing.
Thanks - I'm glad it's of interest! I was involved in the early development of DxO's software and remember opening some 2004 files in some 2007 software and realising just how quickly things were changing. At some point I'll get out the 5MP Olympus E-20 and see what modern software can do with the images ;-)
Yes you are so right abotu the F mount holding Nikon back dues to its small size and number of electrical contacts. Now Nikon's Z mount is bigger than Canons EF mount. I can see why you want to stay with your current set up Due to the cost of going to mirrorless - but one day you will have to. Today anyone looking at a new system would look at the price of Canon lenses and say no way.
Yes, from a design POV, the Z mount is very capable, particularly with its short flange distance, which makes it very easy to adapt to other lenses. Yes, the 5Ds has given good service, but I feel changes on the way... ;-)
I don't use Nikon for a very silly reason. When I first decided to get an SLR (circa 1975), Nikons used a mount that seemed backwards. You had to turn the lens to the left, engage a little lever and then turn the aperture ring. And they were loud! I haven't considered them since. Their more recent corporate financial troubles have been equally off-putting, considering the large investment in lenses that's required.
Same reason for me, I always found it strange that Nikon did thing differently like the mount and even going with black tele lens while every other brand did things the same.
I think the Nikon D850 is the best camera mate still. It is still the best camera on this planet in my view for what you get for your money and what it can do. It still beats 90% of the mirrorless camera is on the market.
Thanks for the votes from the D850 fan club... ;-) Depends on what you want to do and with what lenses - I genuinely don't care who makes the camera ;-)
@@KeithCooper well it matters from the sense depending where you live as well for instance there is no photography store close to me, but there is a Nikon service centre which is around 400 km from where I live and when you do a lot of landscape photography like I do occasionally you break things. It's not like studio photography where you've got beautiful lights in nice even this to everything being a landscape. Photographer is risky and you break things so I also need a camera that's got great build quality. Build quality is everything in a landscape camera. Yes it's gotta be to take good photos but it's also gotta be able to take a few hits. And that's why I chose the Nikon D850 it is pound for pound the toughest camera ever made, and if you dropped a Z7 from it would smash into 1000 pieces you could drop a D850 from a metre and a half like I did and it bounced....... So yes, it does matter
I shot Canon for a few years (5D III) and it was a a very good camera, don't get me wrong. Canon lenses have always been fantastic and even the possibility to adapt an Nikkor lens to a Canon (but not the other way around) was an advantage in itself. However, I was unhappy with the dynamic range and the shadow recovery (too noisy) not to mention the mis-metering that happened way too often (and it wasn't user's error it was the camera mis-metering!). So I switched to Nikon (well done on your pronunciation here!). So it came the D810 and I was in heaven!! never an issue, nearly 15 stops of Dynamic Range, and an array of lenses that had nothing to envy to Canon. Then Zeiss came along with the Otus F mount and it was it. Look no further!! No AA filter, super sharp, incredible colours and most of all always working perfectly. The ergonomics I still think Canon is slightly (but we're splitting hairs here) better than Nikon. But I love all my Nikon cameras. Will I ever go back? Mah... doesn't look like it.. In Any case Canon is very very capable and I would't hesitate to recommend to those who like the experience with a Canon.
Finally jumped ship on Nikon after a lifetime of waiting for every product and went to a 61MP Sony 18 months ago. With Z lenses Nikon just haven't offered anything (other than a few $3000 ones) I would use. The only benefit to the large diameter mount (other than large diameter lenses) is they allow exponentially more dust on the sensor during lens changes (last Nikon was a Z6 so yes I own one). However everything you've heard about Sony is true, the whole deal needs to be re-designed to make it an acceptable field camera instead of a dainty prima donna. Don't worry, I stopped argueing cameras years ago, I could go Canon tomorrow if there was a good reason. But after a lifetime I'll take on anyone regarding Nikon. I'd had enough and I still don't know how they survive.
It does amaze me how much people appear to spend on swapping systems or updating their camera and lenses every time a new version comes out. I appreciate that eye tracking autofocus is a massive bonus when it comes to fast moving subjects, and have found my Canon R6 has helped me when it comes to bird photography. However when it comes to subjects, where speed isn't a consideration, I really wonder how many people could tell the difference between an A2 print from any of the top range mirrorless or dslr cameras taken with quality glass. I suspect the main difference is always going to be the expertise of the person behind the camera.
I suspect there is a lot of 'new kit will improve my photos' when in reality the problem ay in the one bit of their photography they don't want to address... ;-)
Yes, there is that... One Canon tilt/shift patent I saw, had motorised focus and tilt axes. You could touch two points on the screen and it would set the tilt and focus to pass the plane of focus through both... $$$$ ;-)
Great video Keith I’ve been Nikon since 1970’s and when I retired was using the D850’s with the usual lenses When I gave up work the Nikon gear was given up as well as at almost 69 the gear was too heavy so I bought into Fuji with two xh2 bodies and good glass to continue making a wee bit of money on the side Tried the Z system and couldn’t adjust and couldn’t justify med format so it’s x system and it does the job well 😊
I agree with your logic. So did several other pros in Toronto who went Canon full frame in the day, so I bought all their Nikon glass and have shot happily for years. Now looking seriously at 19mm PCE Nikkor, I shoot mostly interiors with a Sigma 12-24 and Nikon 18mm rectilinear. Have an Arca Swiss Monolith 6x9, but the lenses and backs seem to be soon superseded by the Hasselblad X2D. So is it better to Tilt Shift lens or given the high megapixels, shoot wide and Tilt Shift in Capture One and DxO, given most clients look at the pix on their...phones.
Personally I prefer to shift the lens, since I know exactly what's in the frame, without the need for subsequent 'fixing'. All about cost and convenience for whatever market you are in...
Make total sense. I love the resolution of the 5Ds and 5DsR! My biggest disappointment wit all full frame camera manufactures is not using an OVERSIZED SENSOR, so we could use MORE OF THE IMAGE CIRLCE of our wonderful glass. Like the 17mm TSE, for example: super expensive and excellent, and we can only use the 3:2 image area. If we had oversized sensors, we could shoot in square, 5:4, 4:3, 16:9, using the entire image circle of the lens, all four sides of all of these aspect ratios touching the edge of the lens, which only happens with 3:2 now. A large percentage of that expensive and capable glass can't be used. Many are stuck in the 3:2 aspect ratio for this reason too, which often isn't the best aspect ratio, which cuts down creativity drastically, and unnecessarily. Panasonic used their multi-aspect ratio sensor in some of their micro-four-thirds and compact cameras for awhile. I fell in love with it while using the LX5, absolutely in love! I recently bought a LX100 II, because my LX100 died. Both have a extremely high quality all-glass lens. By turning the aspect ratio dial, we can decide which area of the lens the sensor captures, either in 4:3, 3:2 or 16:9, all using the entire image circle. 1:1 is a crop of 4:3. If we had an oversized square sensor, imagine what we could do with extreme wide angle lenses, not being stuck in 3:2, or having to crop from 3:2 to get other aspect ratios. Northern lights photography requires very wide angle lenses to capture a large amount of sky, but 3:2 is often not the best aspect ratio, cutting off much of the aurora. I think it's a shame that we can't use all of our glass, or at least most of it with an oversized square sensor. At least Panasonic could have built their full frame cameras around a mount that allowed their multi-apect ratio sensor to be incorporated. But they didn't. A sensor covering the entire image circle could allow fisheyes to capture the entire lens! Since the cost of producing sensors has come down, why didn't someone do this, especially Panasonic? Being able to shoot landscape photos in square, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9 or any other ratio can be a COMPOSITIONAL DREAM! Not having to crop from 3:2, using the entire lens from the get go. It MAKES COMPOSITION SO MUCH FUN! The first thing we can then do is choose the aspect ratio for the scene, instead of cropping it from 3:2 later. Isn't this a basic ARTISTIC compositional tool that we should have all been able to have. Isn't photography about ART? They hamstrung us by abandoning the multi-aspect ratio sensor (Panasonic), and by not introducing those that could use even more of the image circle. I tried REALLY HARD championing this idea in the DPReview forums for many years, but most people weren't interested at all. I never did understand why most weren't interested. We're all wired differently. Maybe only some of us appreciate being able to use more of our lenses, and love framing subjects in the best aspect ratio for the scene. But even if someone only shoots in 4:3 or 5:4 or square, they could use the entire image circle to do it if they had an oversized sensor. And being able to get extra width out of a scene by changing the dial to 16:9 is just fun. The 17mm TSE then becomes more like 16mm wide. A 24mm lens becomes almost a 22mm, just by flipping the switch. To me, it's just a no-brainer, but it seems like many who had the Panasonic cameras with the multi-aspect ratio sensors didn't really understand the benefit. PANASONIC DIDN'T MARKET THE FEATURE WELL. I've looked hard for years, and they never made one video that fully explained the benefits. One person explained that initially, sensors didn't have much resolution, so not having to crop in post was more important for sharpness. Maybe that's true for telephoto images. Maybe many don't shoot wide angle, and don't appreciate getting a wider field of view from the lens when shooting anything but 3:2. One solution would be to use full frame lenses on medium format cameras (digital), but MF cameras need the shutter built into the lens. So that won't work. As some of us are senior citizens now, I feel like this is one of the great opportunities that we missed out on here on earth, which could have been easily implemented, but something terribly went wrong with marketing or something, and people getting stuck on thinking only ISO noise, dynamic range and resolution are important. Many have no idea how much FUN and VERSATILITY we missed out on. Keith, I'm writing so much here, because I'm thinking you may be one of the few people who can understand this. Imagine how much versatility this could have opened up when using fixed lenses like the TS-E lenses, as well as the super wide full frame lenses as wide as 11mm! At least when we had DPReview, we could talk about what could and should happen. Now, Panasonic's LX100 II is the only still camera that still has their great invention: the multi-aspect ratio sensor, except a micro-four-thirds model that's made for video. Isn't the gear supposed to improve artistic expression? Keith, do you have any ideas why we're now stuck in 3:2 (or 4:3 in some manufacturers)? Thanks again for all you've shared on DPReview, on your own site, etc., and especially helping people realize the importance of wide color gamut, which many people also had a hard time understanding. I'm so glad I found your RUclips channel, which is incredibly interesting. I just saw your video on using diagonal shift for TS-E lenses, which blew my mind, having never seen this at all before! I've read so many of your articles over the years. It's great to see you explain what you have written about in this format! God bless!
Thanks - glad it's been of interest! I'll admit, I've never been bothered much about aspect ratios myself - I like wide lenses and crop as I need... However, I am currently testing my TS-E lenses on a GFX100S [44x33mm sensor] - quite a few of my EF lenses seem happy with an adapter So few people want square sensors it would be massively expensive to start producing them economically
@@KeithCooper That's GREAT NEWS! Years ago, I got excited, thinking the new Fuji MF digital would work as an oversized sensor with our Canon SLR lenses, but then I mistakenly thought all MF lenses had leaf shutters, so the Fuji MF digital bodies wouldn't have a shutter. Since there is almost zero chance we'll see a FF oversized sensor camera now, this could be close to a dream come true; though, I imagine it won't be as easy to frame subjects in one of the standard aspect ratios, which the Panasonic multi-aspect ratio sensor was so great at, and still is with the LX100 II. How is composing subjects working for you? I'm guessing you're seeing at least part of the image circle edges of the lens, instead of straight line edges, unless you set the LCD to 1:1, which I'm thinking would be 33 x 33 mm. But I would use 4:3 and 3:2 much more often, and 16:9 too. I'm not stuck in just using standard aspect ratios, but I wonder how hard it is to compose subjects without having straight line borders. Regarding the use of non-TS-E Canon lenses, I know some have rectangular baffles on the back of the lenses which may be able to be removed. I live in Alaska, and have used the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 to shoot the northern lights with Canon adapter, because it's very sharp across the frame at f/2.8. It's discouraging to be stuck in 3:2 when the aurora is straight overhead, covering much of the sky. The Fuji body would allow 35 x 33mm, so 4:3 and 5:4 are doable! Almost all northern lights images are 3:2, because we need to get as wide as possible, often. But that's just one of the many reasons I don't like being stuck in 3:2. I shoot nature landscapes and cityscapes, so I like shooting buildings too. I've taken some years off, but want to get back into it. I've been so frustrated that multi-aspect never happened for full frame. The GFX 100S could be the solution! I was just comparing resolutions in DPReview's Studio Scene comparison tool, , but then it stopped working. It also looks like they're removing many of the images already that make the Scene work. While it was up, I was able to see a radical sharpness advantage of the GFX100S over the Canon 5DsR. Very noticeable! I just now tried to look at DPR's review of the GFX100S, and it says "This page isn't working." So sad to see Amazon completely remove all of that massive work so many did. :( One review said the 100S' LCD screen can be set to either 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 or 16:9 aspect ratios. Have you tried these? It looks like 1:1 would work with the Canon at 33 x 33mm; though, the other ones probably not as well. Are you going to be doing a written or video review of you experience with your Canon lenses on the GFX100S? I would LOVE to see that! If you are having a hard time composing on the LCD by not having linear borders, have you tried maybe taping cardboard borders on the back of the camera, or something else? I know we can always just crop in post, but it's nice to have an idea of how the image will look while we're shooting it. Are you having any sharpness problems? I read many years ago that the angle of light projected by the rear of the lens onto the sensor can affect image quality. So because SLR lenses have to focus light more narrowly to go far back behind the mirror box, maybe that's an advantage over using Canon mirrorless lenses with the GFX? I only have Canon SLR lenses, myself. This is exciting! I'm so glad you told me about this!
I've shot in 35mm mode on the GFX - this takes a 24x36 crop from the sensor (still 60MP) - the viewfinder changes to the crop. If you set any non full sensor crop [square for example] it will crop the full size image to square and show as square in the viewfinder. You can't use RF mount lenses [or Z] with the GFX - the mount-sensor [flange] distance is too great. Off axis lighting is not the problem it was... I've only seen reflection issues with some old [60s/70s] lenses I've adapted for DSLR use [I've loads of testing of this on the web site]
@@KeithCooper It's nice to see they have 35mm mode as an option, but they only offer it in 3:2? Is that true, and if so, why would they only offer 3:2, since most of our Canon lenses can be shot in the other aspect ratios? If they offered 4:3, 5:4, square and 16:9 also, we would have a multi-aspect ratio camera that's user friendly. Is this available? It sounds like their regular square option works perfectly with 35mm lenses (33x33mm), but their other aspect ratios would include the black and circular areas outside of what is 4:3, 5:4, 3:2 and 16:9 for 35mm lenses. I'm still very excited about this being the only multi-aspect solution for 35mm lenses now, and I'm open to having to use a cardboard cut out or something to help with framing, if need be. I also shoot macro flowers, for which 3:2 is seldom the best ration. 4:3, 5:4 or square would often be better. Great to hear that off axis lighting isn't a problem, so Canon EF lenses will work. I only have Canon EF lenses. Never did go mirrorless. The Nikon 14mm f/2.8 has their SLR F mount, which can be used on Canon SLRs with a shallow adaptor, since the mirror box is deeper for Canon. If I used the Nikon 14mm on the GFX to shoot the northern lights wide open, I would keep it on the slim FE mount adapter, also using an adapter like you're using. In your last video, it sounds like the oversized TS-E lenses mostly fit within the FGX's sensor (nice to hear); though, there is some vignetting, you said, even from the adapter. I hope you show us what you see in your GFX's lcd when you do your videos. I'm looking forward to seeing what it looks like, and what's your work-around to frame your images while knowing you'll have to crop the image some in post to get rid of the vignetting, and maybe to shoot at a desired aspect ratio too. It's interesting that you estimate the 24mm TS-E to be about 20mm on that sensor. That's a fabulous option for the GFX even if people don't want to use tilt or shift. I'll have to get my 24mm TS-E repaired. Somehow it's no longer sharp, but used to be my sharpest wide angle lens. Compared to the 17mm TS-E, i's nice that it also has a filter ring, so I can use a polarizer for landscape. 20mm wide would be sweet! I imagine that the 17mm TS-E might be 15mm on the GFX, or even wider! That's pretty amazing too, being able to use almost the entire 100MP sensor in super wide angle! Though ,f/4 is too slow for northern lights photos! You've probably seen that the old 90mm TS-E is also tack sharp, which is probably why they never updated it. I prefer the sun stars the old TS-Es produced when stopped down, since they don't have so many rays (less sided aperture, I've heard), but the original 24mm TS-E really is soft compared to the updated version. Very exciting! Many Canon shooters shoot birds with $12,000 fixed tele lenses. 3:2 is often not the best ratio for birds too. This way they could use all of their expensive glass - probably mostly for still subjects though, since I suppose the autofocus won't track flying birds well, and frames per second will be low. The 5DsR is good enough for me, when I've done it with the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 II. Being able to use that lens on the GFX for all kinds of still would be great too! $6,000 is a lot of money for a camera body, but we can get so much more out of our Canon SLR glass. The creative options are multiplied when we're not stuck in 3:2, or have to crop from 3:2, especially for wide angle lenses, to be able to increase field of view in square, 5:4, 4:3 and 16:9! For teles, it increases the field of view too. We're able to use our entire, expensive lens this way, instead of only the 3:2 area. Fuji should design future models to be used with FF SLR lenses in a user friendly, multi-aspect ratio manner. It's too bad we can't talk about this in the DPReview forums; though, there are other options like this now. :)
@@jefffenske1958 I'd note that there are two 3:2 modes - one emulates the size of a 35mm sensor, the other crops the full sensor to 3:2 There is a video later today looking at the TS-E24 I don't really see the problems with other aspect ratios. One reason is that every EF mount lens I've looked at has different characteristics outside of the normal 36x24. I've also been experimenting with all sorts of old lenses - so for example, the Soviet Helios 58/2 I've got covers the entire 33x44 sensor - as does a 1962 Tamron 'Twin Tele' 135/4.5 (both M42 screw fit). If I should manage to get a GFX of my own, I'll do a lot more testing of old lenses [I've dozens tested on the 5Ds and EOS RP] I'd say Fuji already does pretty well with multi-aspect ratio settings - I do't think it's commonly listed failing [but yes a pity about DPR!] The TS-E17 comes out at just below 14mm 'equiv' - The new Fuji 30mm T/S lens will be roughly equivalent to the TS-E24 on 35mm
I suppose poor old Pentax will never get a mention 😢 just kidding Keith, Nice video about your requirements for work rather than the latest and greatest.
As I've got older (50 now) I've used nearly every brand. I've just actually returned to Nikon FF from years with the Fuji X system, and chosen the very basic (by todays standards) Z5. A small lens kit, the IQ is beautiful. BUT saying that, when I look back 15 years of digital photography on screen with my FLICKR page, you cannot tell any difference regarding image quality from back then to now. I'm so glad you're not in the latest gear rat-race.....I now have settled as the cost of the latest gear from all brands is extortionate! The latest greatest is out of my budget......I too feel the DSLR's from the last 10 years are 'good enough' for most people....
These questions are usually from (insecure?) people who want you to validate their chosen system. There was another UK photographer on RUclips who went through the same thing when he recently changed systems. I find them tedious as they really have nothing to do with the photographic process. Keep up the good work though.
Thanks - I've resisted simple 'answers' to this in the past, but I thought that combining what I've done over the last ~20 years would put it in a bit of context ;-)
I think that's wrong. I went to a photo exhibition years ago, where two professional photographers were exhibiting. I did ask them about their camera choices, because I wanted to know more about the differences between the cameras, The landscaper had switched from Canon to Nikon for more pixels. Seems sensible. The wildlife shooter switched from Nikon to Canon for better AF. Fun fact. In the gallery he had a Sigma 200-500 F2.8. It has a carry handle, I think it should also have wheels.
Fortunately, you're in the enviable position whereby if you do decide to update to a Canon mirrorless body, your existing EOS lenses will work perfectly well on it. I'm a Nikon shooter myself, and fully understand the great benefit the new Z mount offers, but were I in your situation with so much quality Canon gear already, I would simply add an RF body at some point if you need it. The entire EOS ecosystem, DSLR and mirrorless, is very solid stuff. The company that's going to struggle going forward is Sony. Their E-Mount was originally designed for APS-C, and I suspect that is going to hamstring them somewhat moving forward when attempting to design more exotic lenses at relatively reasonable prices. They *had* first mover advantage in full frame mirrorless, but that lead has all but disappeared now that the established major players have gotten into the full frame mirrorless game.
I don't have any shooting experience with the Sony kit, but when they announced the full frame sensor cameras with the E mount, I'll admit that I thought just that about future expansion and optics.
@@KeithCooperCanon, Nikon and Fuji all seem to have better colour science than Sony. If you were willing to jump ship medium format for landscape seems to make sense.
Talking about your reasons why you started with Canonin earlu 2003-2004, i totally agree, in that period Canon had an edge in digital photography especially with FF sensors. Later thing has changed but there is no reasons to change a system when you got many lenses on a particular system.
At that format (equivalent 35mm) they are fairly similar. Medium format and large format/medium format view camera show more difference. Constantly changing kit is a waste of money.
I totally agree that it’s all about the glass. I was using Nikon film cameras and already had quite a bit of glass when I transitioned to digital. Of great appeal to me with the F mount, I could still use my older manual focus lenses on my digital cameras as well as my early D auto focus. Up until 2012 my Digital cameras were APSC and I looked with envy at my friends who sported their Canon 5Ds. I knew if I waited, Nikon would come out with a full frame camera that would meet my needs and they did in 2012 with the D800. I still love and occasionally use the camera but finally upgraded to the D850. I am gradually migrating to mirrorless with a Z6, but I can still use all of my F glass with an adapter. I have so much Nikon glass now, it would be financially impossible for me to switch brands now and retain the same capabilities.
If I frequented "architecture photography" commercially today, I would invest in a Cambo Actus G 15mm kit for my current camera. This is a (big) miniature large format camera on a focusing rail with tilt and shift. The 15mm has ~no geometric distortion and a very large image circle with a mechanical diaphragm. The mount adapter on the back holding the bellows is available in different camera mounts. This kit with camera adapter of your choice is about US$4,400 excluding sales tax. A new kit with a 19mm got introduced at about US$3,500 more. Cambo is an old brand of large format cameras established, and still present, in the Netherlands (EU). "Actus G" is their "camera" for shooting like large format using a (digital) camera as back. And, such a camera needs a lens. Old large format lenses had their optical elements mounted "in" a shutter and the shutter offered exposure time and aperture values. In the case of the Actus G, there are no electronics to the front of the camera and so you have to use lenses with a mechanical diaphragm. The shutter, is the assumption, is provided by the "back" (being your (digital) camera). In the film large format past, Cambo offered "cheap" cameras, primarily. A brand that offered the Rolls Royce of large format was Sinar. Linhof came close in robustness but not in easy adjustments. A Cambo had rather simple adjustment mechanisms that forced you to have excellent fine neuromuscular abilities. The Cambo Actus G seems to offer adjustments that are more like Sinar and that's great, especially with small format (*). (*) the old school definition of small format was "anything that fits on 127 film". 127 at 40 mm wide was the small version of 120 of 60mm wide. Of the 40mm about 36 was usable and so any format with a side smaller than or equal to 36mm is small format. The 645 format has actual dimensions of 45mm * 56mm and no longer fits on 127 so it is medium format. Apply this to today's "medium format" digital cameras and you'll find that only the big Hasselblad an d the Phase ONE are medium format - the rest, sorry Fuji-Leica, etc., is small format. Even most 645 cameras have small format backs.
Way past what I can afford/justify any more - the business benefits compared with what I've already got would be minimal or negative... Happy to test/review one though if anyone can assist ;-) However if a do get a Fuji MF body [which I'm careful to describe as 'small medium format' ] I may well resurrect the MPP 5x4 I have in the far corner of my desk, which I made an EF adapter plate for a while ago - total cost ~£20
Keith, you pointed to an area (TS lenses) where Canon is very strong. Nikon is behind and the others; Sony, Fuji, etc. are not even in the game. However, the mirrorless system allows you to adapt from other mounts. I shoot Sony currently. I shot with Canon for 14 years and loved the bodies and the lenses. I do landscapes and wanted max megapixels with reasonably priced lenses. Those requirements brought me to Sony A7RIV and Tamron. I am happy with the combo. Had Canon or Nikon had similar alternative lens choices, I may have chosen Nikon or Canon as I like their ergonomics better than Sony's.
Yes, there is a strong element of finding what works for what you want to do. I'll be looking at tilt/shift lenses from Fuji later this year, but I doubt they'll be at the economy end of the scale...
@@KeithCooper I know you can adapt TS-E lenses to Fuji medium format, but I wonder about coverage of the larger sensor. I suspect that your shift adjustments will be limited by vignetting.
@@KeithCooper you can easily adapt Canon EF lenses to the Sony E mount via Sigma's MC-11 adaptor...and this includes 3rd party EF lenses too. This, combined with native E mount lenses (which already massively outnumber anything Canon can offer) makes it a no brainer imho (if you can financially afford the marque swap). I'm not a pro, and not wealthy, so I cannot afford to migrate from Canon to Sony. If I could, I'd have done it. Plus, it doesn't pay to reward Canon for their BAD, anti-competitive and monopolistic behaviour of using their patents to stifle 3rd party competition. Governments need to start penalising companies like this, and heaviy so.
You say "it is about the lenses", right? Well, to me it's just the very reason to use Nikon system - with DSLR, either full frame od DX bodies you can use virtually ALL NIKKOR glass made from 1970es to nowadays except for the newest Z-line ones. Now, along with newer lenses I happen to own a 135 mm 3.5 Nikkor and a Vivitar series 1 70-200 mm (both "fully manual", no electronics in them, purchased some 40 years ago). These ancient two lenses (just like those made during DSLR era) work perfectly with my DX bodies and a Z5 (with a z-adapter) and I wouldn't exchange them for ALL CANON LENSES EVER PRODUCED, for the life of me.
Nikon shooter here. This video is brilliant, though I doubt the way a fanboy/fangirl brain is wired would be receptive to such common sense. As long as the gear you have gets you the shot if you are a pro and you got accustomed to the limitation of your gear to the point that it doesn't affect your desired workflow and outcome, then there is no need to change. There is no reason to drive someone to jump systems today unless they need a piece of glass today that is not available on their system of choice, or if they are merely looking for a change for the sake of it. People should really let go of this tribalism. Now, if you were trashing Nikon all the time without trying one, I think the question would have been granted, but the premise of asking someone "why they use X brand and not Y brand?" is just as ridiculous as asking "why do you wear adidas and not Nike sneakers?"
Every artist photographer has to use the equipment that best delivers the results his/her clients require or his or her passion demands. We are all constrained by budgets, demand, and availability of tools and equipment. I don't see giving up my D850 anytime soon. I am considering a sigma fpl for my portrait business.
@Keith Cooper my apologies. I never mentioned how valuable your video is. It is refreshing to see frank, honest, and helpful information from photographers with superior knowledge and abilities to my own. Thank you
Keith you don’t have to explain anything your just saying don’t believe the hype it’s the skills and if the tool is broken then you replace it or upgrade it that’s it. Great video
Yes - I found one of the original [US] patent applications for it ;-) Two RF T/S lenses were in a widely promulgated 'roadmap' for RF lenses - that was a couple of years ago though... Patents don't always translate to products... The key elements of the earlier patent involve motorised tilt/shift movements and an ability to automatically place the plane of focus using two points on a plane. This aspect could just as well be applied to setting up security cameras [Canon has lots of patent applications in this area too, which reference lens tilt] See info here www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-ef-lenses-rumours-and-news/ [As an aside, the Canon Rumours pages go back to late 2003, so 20 years this autumn. I don't now update them as often as in the past though]
Thanks FWIW I believe the pages on that site were the first 'Canon Rumours' [note spelling!] Since about 2009, I've concentrated far more on the articles/reviews - once all the various 'rumor' sites sprung up. Also, there are far fewer new products these days and the companies have got much better in keeping new product info to themselves. Add to that, I took up making these videos in mid 2020 ;-)
@@KeithCooper Yes, I'm from Australia, so we speak British English and spell colours with a 'u'. Sadly, a lot of our youth are now picking up Americanised spelling and slang and it's pretty disgraceful imho. I don't really care much for rumours to be entirely honest - they're rarely right. And, as you said, I typically wait for a new camera patiently. My only reasons for wanting to hop from Canon to Sony are that I believe Sony offers much better value for money, has a much larger lens array available to the consumer, and i do believe that Sony is ahead in the sensor development department. I honestly think Canon is struggling in that respect (hence a lack of BSI or stacked sensors from them). And, of course, my largest reason is that I firmly believe that Canon should be not only punished legally, but punished by consumers for their anti competitive behaviours vs 3rd party lens manufacturers. They are estabilishing a monoply for Canon RF len mount lenses and i do NOT like that type of behaviour. It does nothing to benefit the consumer. and obviously discourages competition, leading to poorer choices, higher prices and typically, from my experience, poorer quality products.
Erudite as always Keith. I have the same story in reverse - lol. I was using canon film cameras when the Nikon D3 came out and that was nice but who could afford that, (yeah I know but I'm just a mums and dads amateur). But then they brought out the D700 and I thought right digital is here for the masses. Now I'm invested, and as you said about your Canon gear, I cant justify the cost or any solid reason for switching gear. I understand tilt shift functionality because I own a Toyo 4x5 large format camera. Cumbersome. Have you ever done hand held tilt shift photography or is it always tripod mounted
Thanks - it's an expensive switch, unless you've someone assisting it ;-) Ah yes hand held tilt/shift... A 'heresy' I frequently engage with ;-) My TS-E24 is my general 'walk-round' lens when I'm on holiday and may not even have a tripod with me. Less so for paying work, but I'm not averse to it - even when testing an H6D 100C with HTS adapter...
My first camera was a Canon. My grandfather recommended the brand to me and I've been using Canon ever since. Had grandpa suggested Nikon it's likely I'd be a Nikon man. We drive a Chevy cause our family dives them. Same with Ford or Dodge. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica, etc. are all excellent cameras. What matters is how much you really wanna spend and how big your ego is.
Yes, for a lot of photography, the choice of gear is not so important. That said I was the first in our family to take up photography, and my choice of a Russian Zorki 4 has had little influence on my photographic career ;-)
I use Nikon due to that I start with them in the 70ties. It not cost effective to change system for an armature. I'm in the process to upgrade my F-system to 45Mpix. I will get a used D850, a used 19mmF4.0 PC and an used 400mmF2.8 G VR. I will get a new 70-200mmF2.8 E VR. Then after a few year I have to decide to get Z8 or start with Fuji GFX100S system for landscape and keep the Nikon system for wildlife. I use D700, 12 Mpix and D800E 36Mpix today.
@@KeithCooper My problem is that I often get stuck on getting hardware instead of using them to grow as an artist.. I often have wondered if its my Engineering background that cause it. You seem to have it under control though. I took a 7 year brake from equipment and only concentrate on learning art theory but that caused me to take less pictures. My Nikon D300 12 Mpix DX camera broke down 2 year ago and since then I have upgraded my Equipment slowly, but not taking allot of pictures.
Yes, my interest in hardware is kept under check by writing articles and now the videos ;-) It means I don't even think much about the hardware when out - just what i want to photograph and why. The 'how' is taken care of.
My Nikons are SO MUCH more intuitive and ergonomic than Canons and Sonys. My Nikon lenses are wonderful. Enjoy your Canons that you've been using since 2004. You've made good choices for your particular needs. I'll continue with my Nikons that I've used professionally since 1979. Isn't photography grand?!
I was a Nikon user starting with a Nikonos II underwater camera in 1969 then a pair of Nikon Fs to do PJ work in college. I later upgraded my u/w gear to Nikonos V and SB-101 flash and got an N8008 DLSR for above water shooting in the 80s and 90s. I switched to Canon in 2004 with a 20D because of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and 10-22mm EF-S, rounding out my “Holy Trinity” with the 24-70mm f/2.8. Another reason I switched to Canon was the E-TTL II flash system which had just been introduced. I had learned to shoot with dual flash in a fill/key configuration in the 1970s working as assistant to wedding pro Monte Zucker and the Canon flash system was much better than what Nikon offered. A third technical reason was at the time Nikon was using CCD sensor technology but Canon was using CMOS. As far a camera bodies? I upgraded to a 50D in 2008 and it was sufficient for my needs until recently when I started doing wildlife photography and videos. I just upgraded to a R6mkII but am still using the EF lenses, the 20-700mm with a 2x extender with good results. The AF technology in the R6mkII, IQ and the ability to customized the UI is nothing short of amazing.
Nope - never had the opportunity to try it. Most expensive stuff I get to try is just on loan... As ever, should a supplier read this, just give me a shout!
Um, the EF mount is basically in the same boat as the F-mount. Both are being discontinued. I actually chose Nikon over Canon when starting out because of the long-life of the F-mount at that time (being that they had maintained the same bayonet style mount since the 1960's up through the 2020 when they sort of discontinued the F-mount lens production... there is still some going on but they are winding it down). So for me, it was being able to adapt realy old AI and AIS lenses to my "modern" DSLR camera if I wanted to (not that I did much of that, but it gave me the option). I think now with the RF from Canon and the Z from Nikon, Nikon has realized the overall value of having lots of options for lenses be it OEM or third party and if lenses are of concern, this is where I think Sony and Nikon (with ML) is going to be better over canon. Canon currently is going after anyone making an AF RF mount lens, whereas Nikon doesn't seem to "care" as long as it doesn't directly compete with their Z OEM lenses (which none do that I'm aware of, except maybe the Viltrox 85 and 35mm FF lenses, but so far Nikon has not said anything or asked Viltrox to stop making those that I'm aware of). I think they see the value in allowing some lenses to be made, as it probably allows Nikon to focus on more important things for the pro-sumer and pro level and let someone else sort of fill in the budget end of things (hence why we just heard about Sigma now doing some APS-C lenses for Nikon Z). And this will become more of a problem for Canon (third party lens support) if NIkon releases their rumored Z8 and/or a competitor to the R5/R6 that delivers the same or better performance, because people will also want lens options, and even some pro-sumer shooters don't want to be locked into ONLY OEM lenses. So I think Nikon and Sony have the "right" approach here and Canon needs to get onboard. That's one reason I personally didn't bother with the Canon R system (plus I had left over F-mount lenses so upgrading to the Z lenses I could do over time so it only made financial sense for me to just stick with Nikon, and since I mainly do travel, landscape and portraiture, the shortcomings of the current Z system don't really hamper my photography.)
Yes - use what works is always my line... The video was more aimed at those who'd advocate a particular brand for no good reason and ignore what it was I was doing photography for. ;-) Given my use of tilt/shift lenses, Canon's current RF lens policies would impinge minimally since very few companies makes them (and Laowa offers RF mount, albeit fully manual)
Canon had a very good run from the late 1980s when they switched to an electronic focus system, right up to the 5DII, which introduced the hybrid stills-video cameras we have today. However, Nikon and Canon were getting their backsides kicked by companies who took mirrorless cameras seriously. Canon's EF mount enjoyed huge customer loyalty, and is still the number one adapted lens to every brand's mirrorless cameras, including Canon's own.
Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony etc makes little difference now. What really creates the 'image that pays' is the computer software to tidy up (manipulate) the original photograph.
I never understood why no rehousing services or kits ever became a thing. The flange difference between Nikon F and Canon EF is only 2mm. Then again, why don’t we have modern Visoflex type gear for mirrorless ( we could bypass the annoyances of EVF.) I love how Canon renders in black and white, but Nikon does better color. Those older Canons do render amazing reds, though. Never considered the advantages of throat diameter for tilt shift. Ultimately, I view Canon EF as a Tesla and Nikon F as a fully manual Porsche. Pick your poison. Driving stick in city traffic is not fun. That Nikon 56mm 1.4G is a lens from another world , tho.
It's a tricky low-volume business. I have a local specialist optics company which does it for cine lenses, where there is the demand and money. I've seen people regard my TS-E lenses as relics, just because I'm focusing manually.
I am slowly switching over to Fuji, because I’m not happy with the direction Nikon has gone in the Z series. Cameras were absolute rubbish until you got to the Z72 which was a pretty good camera and clearly desert nine is a great camera but seriously only professionals can afford it. All really rich people. I’m not happy with the mid tier Z cameras that were released. They were faulty bad auto focus and just absolutely crap cameras that were overpriced and their lenses were ridiculously priced as well so I switched to fuji … Fuji make affordable cameras and affordable lenses for the people. So did some other brands as well, but I’m not a fan of Nikon and they’re releasing of an 85 1.2 which is essentially $4000 for one lens. What were they thinking who can seriously afford this great land is fantastic. Good on you. Fantastic fabulous but you didn’t release any budget lenses in the last four years. They can …f…off
Yes, some of Nikon's execution of the change to Z has been questionable, but Canon have been criticised for similar aspects... One of my most reliable regular web site visits is for Thom Hogan's stuff - he has the business back ground and technical knowledge to put a lot of this stuff in proper context.
@@KeithCooper Yeah I agree totally the Z cameras are not very good except for the Z7 to improve the lot and clearly the Z9 is a good camera but so it should be for 7000 bucks too… What has annoyed me about an icon in the last two years though is they have targeted most of their cameras towards professionals they only come out with one camera that was affordable to the general population and that was the ZFC and that frankly is a terrible camera. I have the best combination at the moment I have a NikonD850 for landscapes and I’m using a Fuji XT5 for my portrait and other professional work that I do.
The question/reproach about Nikon, that triggered the video, to me, is totally invalid and irrelevant. Now, I am a Nikon shooter since 1975 and at 35mm format, since then, always shot pro bodies with pro grade prime lenses - zero zooms for stills in my life. That personal private "no zooms policy" with today's Z 2.8 "S" class Nikons is no longer relevant either. The zooms are about as good as the primes. When I bought into Nikon, I had tried a Leica M4 for some time, (Asahi) Pentax 35mm as well as Pentax 6*7, and professionally shot Hasselblad 500 series and large format up to 8"*10". Leica glass was excellent and centre image a bit sharper than Nikon, but long telephoto lenses a total pain in the anatomy (a Leica needed a Visoflex mirror box for long lenses). And then macro, close-ups, etc. Like you, Keith, I needed a comprehensive system available with great integration and professional reliability and robustness. My recurring rant about the F-mount lenses was (a) chromatic aberration (actually worse in fast lenses) and (b) tint-differences between lenses. The Z system solves all that and silenced me. And this is where this Nikon shooter of ~5 decades agrees with Keith that Nikon at several moments in time did not offer what "we" needed. Between the D system (F mount) and the migration to the Z system, I seriously considered another brand than Nikon. Some 12 Nikon speedlights kept me with Nikon. Today, with the Z system, I'm as happy as happy can be (I have a couple nagging things between me and Nikon, though).
People say it, because a lot of the time it is actually true ;-) Regularly? Given the EF mount was started in 1987, the F mount in the 60's and only in the last few years have we seen moves to RF and Z, it's hardly a rapid turnover.
People should think about taking pictures rather then the gear used to take pictures.... Every gear system is capable of taking great pictures. Only one thing.... I hate smartphones they blow away all the romanticism beyond photography...
What specific photographic requirements make you say that? Obviously for the type if photography I do (which is why I discuss it in the video) it makes a lot of sense
@@KeithCooper It's based on my use of Canon glass over the last 25 years. I find it easily out classed by Sony glass, especially glass one might consider as "consumer" grade/priced.
Still doesn't answer really the question... Damming two entire manufacturers of lenses and taking aim at the low end of their range seems somewhat sweeping... If Sony produced specialised lenses of the type I use. I'd happily look at them - they don't... Same would probably go for many professional users of the higher end Nikon lenses... As the video says, it's about the reason I use certain lenses for my work, others may choose otherwise based on what matters to them.
18 minutes to say "I have considerable sunk cost, and I can't justify the money". It is utterly depressing that photographers have to make this sort of content just to get attention.
Nope - no big red letters! Thanks for appreciating the whole channel and what it's about ;-) The next video will indeed be a return to printing [31mins and B&W!]
Thanks - you can never please them all ;-) I've no plans for music and a grand sweeping introduction... It was 'shouty youtube' which put me off doing videos for years ;-) The Nikon one has definitely given a boost to the channel, and hopefully some off my 'detail stuff' as well
![Why not to buy a tilt-shift lens [Fuji 30/5.6].Tilt-shift isn't magic, what do the lenses really do](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zt9DjlaiUHA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Why not to buy a tilt-shift lens [Fuji 30/5.6].Tilt-shift isn't magic, what do the lenses really do](/img/tr.png)
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
Nikon, Fuji, Sony, Canon - who cares?You don't go to a fine dining restaurant, have a wonderful meal and then ask the chef what brand of oven he used.... :-)
Indeed - but I do get asked about brands
I just wanted to give some context to the answer next time. I'm quite happy with people asking questions, since it often gives me ideas for these short videos.
I find that an odd question to ask a professional photographer. Maybe it's just me. Anyway, I'm with Nikon because way back in the day when I was buying my first DSLR, the Nikon D80 had the 18-200 VR lens, which as a beginner seemed a great lens to cover lots of things. It served me well for years. After that, never saw the point in changing systems. Even when I went mirrorless. Unless you have very particular requirements, most camera systems are much the same. :-)
Yes, a lot of people would rather buy kit than think more about actually taking photos...
I don't understand shooters that jump around from one ecosystem to another. I suppose if you 1) have money to burn or 2) have gotten in some situation where companies will just send you stuff, it's a LOT of money to change from one system to another, and you're never going to get your cost in back from reselling.
I started using Canon for a simple reason: I had a friend that shot Canon, so I could borrow lenses until I could get my own. I've recently gotten my first mirrorless, and I had to spend an extra $100 to be able to use my same glass. I don't have a single RF lens (because I'm broke), but I'm in the same "family," so I'm still doing just fine.
Again, unless Nikon or Sony decides to drop me a full kit to change, I don't see it happening. It's not a brand issue for me, just a matter of where I'm at and where I started.
40 years ago, I chose Canon because I'm left eye dominant. I wanted the equivalent Nikon but the power switch was built into the film advance lever. The lever had to be 15 degrees from normal and poked me in the nose or right eye when looking through the finder with my left eye. In the 2000s I went to Nikon's F5 for sports photography and went to the D810 in the 20teens. The nice thing is I have some great D glass from the F5 that I use on the D810 and great G glass that I use with the F5. My favorite frivolous kit is my Mamiya RZ67 kit for studio and landscape.
I never have gotten rid of any of my kits and it's still nice to use them all. Kinda like having lunch with an old friend.
Yes, I've still several OM-2 bodies, I really ought to get rid of, but they do look nice ;-)
The Nikon F mount was rhe reason why I went and stayed with Nikon. I started out with cameras like the Nikormat and I was impressed with how Nikon maintained backward compatibility with their lenses nearly all the way back to the beginning of the SLR. I have about a dozen manual F mount lenses and about a dozen AF F mount lenses. Over the years, I have kept this collection of lenses, but I have bought and sold many different models of camera bodies, right up to the point where Nikon stopped making DSLR’s and went mirrorless. I still have my Nikon system and still use it. But for mirrorless cameras, I have gone to Fujifilm.
Yes - solid reasons.
It's the people who chop and change just spending money in a forlorn hope it will 'improve' their photography who I'm perhaps taking aim at ;-) :-)
Thanks for sharing your journey with cameras. It is not the company it is the images that matter to me too. I started with a Rich KR-30sp back in the 1980s. Switched to Canon with the 1d Mark I and 5d Mark II with the EF mount, then on to the R5 Mk1 and 2 for RF mount which is what I am currently using. Wasn't about anything other than it was the best equipment for me at the time.
Well said! Thanks
As someone who used to shoot Nikon (D800 / D850) with Nikon's PC-E lenses, I agree. The Canon lenses are more modern and better, mainly due to the size of the lens mount. I now adapt Canon lenses on my GFX cameras and love it. I do really like the Nikon Z cameras, been testing the Z7II and even purchased an adapter to mount the TSE lenses on the Nikon Z, works great, but can't compete with my GFX cameras for architecture.
Yes, the 19mm PC-E shows what could be done optically, but as you say, the F mount was limiting.
I'm hoping to get a GFX back again for some more testing with adapted lenses...
Personally, I prefer Sony and that is partly because my father bought a Sony A100 and I thought it was a great camera. But also that I had some nice lenses from my old Minolta 7000 which at the time were really good lenses and fit the Sony A100 therefore I still use Sony. But basically it doesn't matter which manufacturer you prefer because the camera is just a tool to show other people a picture you've seen.
Then it is up to everyone to use the brand they like.
As a famous photographer once said
It's not the camera that makes the picture, it's the person behind it, those were the words of Ansel Adams.
Yes, a bit more concentration on the actual photos is not a bad thing!
I’m relatively new to photography, only doing my thang since 2015 or so. I never understood why people get so up in arms about which brand you use to do what. I’m a car guy and it reminds me so much of that. Cliques, and leagues, and posses, and crews. Seriously, shoot what you shoot, have fun. A good photographer with an iPhone will outshoot a normie with a 102MP medium format camera any day.
Yes, I still get bits of the 'brand stuff' every so often when I do talks at camera clubs [which I do enjoy]. My usual response is not to understand the question ;-)
I can outshoot both the iPhone user and the MF user with my gear, because I have the gear for every kind of photography I do.
@@oneeyedphotographer Watchout everyone, we got a badass here.
Pleased to have found your channel.
I was read an article by yourself about TSE lenses many years ago that made me purchase Canon cameras after all my Pentax gear was stolen. I have had a long sabbatical from photography after personal loss took away my enthusiasm for it.
My gear is relatively old (5Dmk ii) but still have my TSE 17,24 and the old 90 which is my all time favourite lens and the 180 macro.
Watching this has made me realise that it isn’t necessary to purchase loads of new gear and I should just get out there with what I have. Lost my Mum a few months ago and opposite to my previous losses it has given me the impulse to get back into photography once again.
Glad it's been of interest. A similar situation last year has reminded me that I wasn't getting out enough for my own enjoyment of photography [even though I do enjoy the work I do]
Saying the F mount is too small and limiting is dismissing the historical point of staying with the F mount in the DSLR age. The point being that the F mount was designed early on in the 35mm film days and has been very successful, and moving into the digital age with DSLRs beginning with APS-C sensors F mount lenses covered it perfectly. Once Nikon came out with FX sensors it was back to normal returning back to the 35mm frame box.
The best part about it is that the F mount allows one to still use 50 year old legacy lenses natively all the way back to Ai and Ai-S and with mid to high tier DSLR bodies the use of body driven AF-D, and if you have the Nikon Df you are able to flip up the Ai coupling tab to accept even earlier Pre/Non Ai lenses without having to physically convert the lens. That is one thing I wished Nikon could have included in the D(xxx) and D(x) series mounts, the flip up Ai coupling tab.
I had the chance 15 years ago to get int the EF system but found Canon to have inferior DR for what I wanted to do so I stuck with Nikon not only for its reputation of DR and true color straight out of camera but for all those legacy lenses I bough back in the 70s and 80s. Now my workhorse is the D850 and every generation F mount lenses I have works brilliantly on it (except my 1960s Non-Ai), so I see no reason to go Canon as great as their top tier EF glass is.
Perfectly valid historical perspective - for those interested in old glass.
However, most people are not remotely so interested (their loss IMHO ;-) ]
Going forward, Nikon bit the bullet and moved on past it with Z. Good choice I'd say, having read some of their info about the new mount.
@@KeithCooper true! I did get a Z5 when it came out and have yet to purchase a Z lens, I've been adapting my F lenses because I like the option of the cameras IBIS with my collection.
I have not yet have the need to replace any lenses but from what I've seen the Z glass rendering is very amazing, maybe too good because the difference I've seen is the high end F (G and D series) lenses are stunning as well but has a different, more pleasing depth and character that I only see in a couple Z primes at 2 to 3 times the cost.
I switched to canon from Nikon in about the same era you are talking about. I shot Nikon Film cameras I think it was N70 until the camera literally died in the middle of a shoot. I had gotten a canon D20 earlier to play with astounding 8mp. I had a tamron zoom on it. And was discovering I liked the pictures comming out of it. But all my lenses at the time were Nikon, so when came time to upgrade, I went with Nikon. It was a 15mp crop sensor the results drove me crazy everything seemed soft compared to both my N70 but more so the little canon. My friend at the time (a pro photographer with many magazine covers to her credit) couldn’t understand the problem I was seeing… but since she was shooting with the same camera, I made her a deal to sell her mine. And I switched to Canon. That was a killer financial hit when I did it. But instantly my shots looked sharp and crisp again. And I never looked back.
Thanks - I remember quite a few people swapping around at this time - my own 1Ds was an all new system for me though.
Keith, thank you for all your very informative videos and articles, I have quickly become an avid follower of yours. You gave a very solid piece of advice at the start of the video, somewhat indirectly linked to the main subject, and which should be set in stone. It is "Keep your raw files", which I have very recently realised the importance of. The evolution of software is giving new life to raw images shot and saved many years ago. I am finding more and more interest in going back and rework old files. This has also taught me that even digital cameras can last a lot longer than the general perception is. Ten or so years old camera technology is still relevant today, as you are witnessing.
Thanks - I'm glad it's of interest!
I was involved in the early development of DxO's software and remember opening some 2004 files in some 2007 software and realising just how quickly things were changing.
At some point I'll get out the 5MP Olympus E-20 and see what modern software can do with the images ;-)
Capture One seems to be a fabulous 'interpreter' raw files... I'd give it a go if I were you.
Unlikely - can't justify spending on more software at the moment...
Yes you are so right abotu the F mount holding Nikon back dues to its small size and number of electrical contacts.
Now Nikon's Z mount is bigger than Canons EF mount.
I can see why you want to stay with your current set up
Due to the cost of going to mirrorless - but one day you will have to.
Today anyone looking at a new system would look at the price of Canon lenses and say no way.
Yes, from a design POV, the Z mount is very capable, particularly with its short flange distance, which makes it very easy to adapt to other lenses.
Yes, the 5Ds has given good service, but I feel changes on the way... ;-)
I don't use Nikon for a very silly reason. When I first decided to get an SLR (circa 1975), Nikons used a mount that seemed backwards. You had to turn the lens to the left, engage a little lever and then turn the aperture ring. And they were loud! I haven't considered them since. Their more recent corporate financial troubles have been equally off-putting, considering the large investment in lenses that's required.
Ok I'll admit the lens rotation has caught me out too...
Same reason for me, I always found it strange that Nikon did thing differently like the mount and even going with black tele lens while every other brand did things the same.
I think the Nikon D850 is the best camera mate still. It is still the best camera on this planet in my view for what you get for your money and what it can do. It still beats 90% of the mirrorless camera is on the market.
Thanks for the votes from the D850 fan club... ;-)
Depends on what you want to do and with what lenses - I genuinely don't care who makes the camera ;-)
@@KeithCooper well it matters from the sense depending where you live as well for instance there is no photography store close to me, but there is a Nikon service centre which is around 400 km from where I live and when you do a lot of landscape photography like I do occasionally you break things. It's not like studio photography where you've got beautiful lights in nice even this to everything being a landscape. Photographer is risky and you break things so I also need a camera that's got great build quality. Build quality is everything in a landscape camera. Yes it's gotta be to take good photos but it's also gotta be able to take a few hits. And that's why I chose the Nikon D850 it is pound for pound the toughest camera ever made, and if you dropped a Z7 from it would smash into 1000 pieces you could drop a D850 from a metre and a half like I did and it bounced....... So yes, it does matter
Of course it matters - but it's about personal reasons for it. I'd never argue that the D850 wasn't anything but an excellent camera...
I shot Canon for a few years (5D III) and it was a a very good camera, don't get me wrong. Canon lenses have always been fantastic and even the possibility to adapt an Nikkor lens to a Canon (but not the other way around) was an advantage in itself. However, I was unhappy with the dynamic range and the shadow recovery (too noisy) not to mention the mis-metering that happened way too often (and it wasn't user's error it was the camera mis-metering!). So I switched to Nikon (well done on your pronunciation here!). So it came the D810 and I was in heaven!! never an issue, nearly 15 stops of Dynamic Range, and an array of lenses that had nothing to envy to Canon. Then Zeiss came along with the Otus F mount and it was it. Look no further!! No AA filter, super sharp, incredible colours and most of all always working perfectly. The ergonomics I still think Canon is slightly (but we're splitting hairs here) better than Nikon. But I love all my Nikon cameras. Will I ever go back? Mah... doesn't look like it.. In Any case Canon is very very capable and I would't hesitate to recommend to those who like the experience with a Canon.
Thanks
I'm certain my 5Ds will be replaced before too long - just with what I don't know ;-)
Finally jumped ship on Nikon after a lifetime of waiting for every product and went to a 61MP Sony 18 months ago. With Z lenses Nikon just haven't offered anything (other than a few $3000 ones) I would use. The only benefit to the large diameter mount (other than large diameter lenses) is they allow exponentially more dust on the sensor during lens changes (last Nikon was a Z6 so yes I own one). However everything you've heard about Sony is true, the whole deal needs to be re-designed to make it an acceptable field camera instead of a dainty prima donna. Don't worry, I stopped argueing cameras years ago, I could go Canon tomorrow if there was a good reason. But after a lifetime I'll take on anyone regarding Nikon. I'd had enough and I still don't know how they survive.
Ah yes - I'd quite like to see what Sony does, but I'm not on their Christmas card list :-(
It does amaze me how much people appear to spend on swapping systems or updating their camera and lenses every time a new version comes out. I appreciate that eye tracking autofocus is a massive bonus when it comes to fast moving subjects, and have found my Canon R6 has helped me when it comes to bird photography.
However when it comes to subjects, where speed isn't a consideration, I really wonder how many people could tell the difference between an A2 print from any of the top range mirrorless or dslr cameras taken with quality glass. I suspect the main difference is always going to be the expertise of the person behind the camera.
I suspect there is a lot of 'new kit will improve my photos' when in reality the problem ay in the one bit of their photography they don't want to address... ;-)
I dread to think how much RF T-S lenses would cost! More than happy with my EF45 and Mk1 EF90
Yes, there is that...
One Canon tilt/shift patent I saw, had motorised focus and tilt axes. You could touch two points on the screen and it would set the tilt and focus to pass the plane of focus through both... $$$$ ;-)
Takes the fun out of it!
Great video Keith I’ve been Nikon since 1970’s and when I retired was using the D850’s with the usual lenses When I gave up work the Nikon gear was given up as well as at almost 69 the gear was too heavy so I bought into Fuji with two xh2 bodies and good glass to continue making a wee bit of money on the side Tried the Z system and couldn’t adjust and couldn’t justify med format so it’s x system and it does the job well 😊
Excellent - glad it was of interest!
I agree with your logic. So did several other pros in Toronto who went Canon full frame in the day, so I bought all their Nikon glass and have shot happily for years. Now looking seriously at 19mm PCE Nikkor, I shoot mostly interiors with a Sigma 12-24 and Nikon 18mm rectilinear. Have an Arca Swiss Monolith 6x9, but the lenses and backs seem to be soon superseded by the Hasselblad X2D. So is it better to Tilt Shift lens or given the high megapixels, shoot wide and Tilt Shift in Capture One and DxO, given most clients look at the pix on their...phones.
Personally I prefer to shift the lens, since I know exactly what's in the frame, without the need for subsequent 'fixing'.
All about cost and convenience for whatever market you are in...
Make total sense. I love the resolution of the 5Ds and 5DsR! My biggest disappointment wit all full frame camera manufactures is not using an OVERSIZED SENSOR, so we could use MORE OF THE IMAGE CIRLCE of our wonderful glass. Like the 17mm TSE, for example: super expensive and excellent, and we can only use the 3:2 image area. If we had oversized sensors, we could shoot in square, 5:4, 4:3, 16:9, using the entire image circle of the lens, all four sides of all of these aspect ratios touching the edge of the lens, which only happens with 3:2 now. A large percentage of that expensive and capable glass can't be used.
Many are stuck in the 3:2 aspect ratio for this reason too, which often isn't the best aspect ratio, which cuts down creativity drastically, and unnecessarily.
Panasonic used their multi-aspect ratio sensor in some of their micro-four-thirds and compact cameras for awhile. I fell in love with it while using the LX5, absolutely in love! I recently bought a LX100 II, because my LX100 died. Both have a extremely high quality all-glass lens. By turning the aspect ratio dial, we can decide which area of the lens the sensor captures, either in 4:3, 3:2 or 16:9, all using the entire image circle. 1:1 is a crop of 4:3.
If we had an oversized square sensor, imagine what we could do with extreme wide angle lenses, not being stuck in 3:2, or having to crop from 3:2 to get other aspect ratios.
Northern lights photography requires very wide angle lenses to capture a large amount of sky, but 3:2 is often not the best aspect ratio, cutting off much of the aurora.
I think it's a shame that we can't use all of our glass, or at least most of it with an oversized square sensor.
At least Panasonic could have built their full frame cameras around a mount that allowed their multi-apect ratio sensor to be incorporated. But they didn't.
A sensor covering the entire image circle could allow fisheyes to capture the entire lens!
Since the cost of producing sensors has come down, why didn't someone do this, especially Panasonic?
Being able to shoot landscape photos in square, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9 or any other ratio can be a COMPOSITIONAL DREAM! Not having to crop from 3:2, using the entire lens from the get go. It MAKES COMPOSITION SO MUCH FUN! The first thing we can then do is choose the aspect ratio for the scene, instead of cropping it from 3:2 later.
Isn't this a basic ARTISTIC compositional tool that we should have all been able to have. Isn't photography about ART? They hamstrung us by abandoning the multi-aspect ratio sensor (Panasonic), and by not introducing those that could use even more of the image circle.
I tried REALLY HARD championing this idea in the DPReview forums for many years, but most people weren't interested at all.
I never did understand why most weren't interested. We're all wired differently. Maybe only some of us appreciate being able to use more of our lenses, and love framing subjects in the best aspect ratio for the scene.
But even if someone only shoots in 4:3 or 5:4 or square, they could use the entire image circle to do it if they had an oversized sensor.
And being able to get extra width out of a scene by changing the dial to 16:9 is just fun. The 17mm TSE then becomes more like 16mm wide. A 24mm lens becomes almost a 22mm, just by flipping the switch.
To me, it's just a no-brainer, but it seems like many who had the Panasonic cameras with the multi-aspect ratio sensors didn't really understand the benefit. PANASONIC DIDN'T MARKET THE FEATURE WELL. I've looked hard for years, and they never made one video that fully explained the benefits.
One person explained that initially, sensors didn't have much resolution, so not having to crop in post was more important for sharpness. Maybe that's true for telephoto images. Maybe many don't shoot wide angle, and don't appreciate getting a wider field of view from the lens when shooting anything but 3:2.
One solution would be to use full frame lenses on medium format cameras (digital), but MF cameras need the shutter built into the lens. So that won't work.
As some of us are senior citizens now, I feel like this is one of the great opportunities that we missed out on here on earth, which could have been easily implemented, but something terribly went wrong with marketing or something, and people getting stuck on thinking only ISO noise, dynamic range and resolution are important.
Many have no idea how much FUN and VERSATILITY we missed out on.
Keith, I'm writing so much here, because I'm thinking you may be one of the few people who can understand this.
Imagine how much versatility this could have opened up when using fixed lenses like the TS-E lenses, as well as the super wide full frame lenses as wide as 11mm!
At least when we had DPReview, we could talk about what could and should happen.
Now, Panasonic's LX100 II is the only still camera that still has their great invention: the multi-aspect ratio sensor, except a micro-four-thirds model that's made for video.
Isn't the gear supposed to improve artistic expression?
Keith, do you have any ideas why we're now stuck in 3:2 (or 4:3 in some manufacturers)?
Thanks again for all you've shared on DPReview, on your own site, etc., and especially helping people realize the importance of wide color gamut, which many people also had a hard time understanding.
I'm so glad I found your RUclips channel, which is incredibly interesting. I just saw your video on using diagonal shift for TS-E lenses, which blew my mind, having never seen this at all before!
I've read so many of your articles over the years. It's great to see you explain what you have written about in this format!
God bless!
Thanks - glad it's been of interest!
I'll admit, I've never been bothered much about aspect ratios myself - I like wide lenses and crop as I need...
However, I am currently testing my TS-E lenses on a GFX100S [44x33mm sensor] - quite a few of my EF lenses seem happy with an adapter
So few people want square sensors it would be massively expensive to start producing them economically
@@KeithCooper That's GREAT NEWS! Years ago, I got excited, thinking the new Fuji MF digital would work as an oversized sensor with our Canon SLR lenses, but then I mistakenly thought all MF lenses had leaf shutters, so the Fuji MF digital bodies wouldn't have a shutter. Since there is almost zero chance we'll see a FF oversized sensor camera now, this could be close to a dream come true; though, I imagine it won't be as easy to frame subjects in one of the standard aspect ratios, which the Panasonic multi-aspect ratio sensor was so great at, and still is with the LX100 II.
How is composing subjects working for you? I'm guessing you're seeing at least part of the image circle edges of the lens, instead of straight line edges, unless you set the LCD to 1:1, which I'm thinking would be 33 x 33 mm. But I would use 4:3 and 3:2 much more often, and 16:9 too. I'm not stuck in just using standard aspect ratios, but I wonder how hard it is to compose subjects without having straight line borders.
Regarding the use of non-TS-E Canon lenses, I know some have rectangular baffles on the back of the lenses which may be able to be removed.
I live in Alaska, and have used the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 to shoot the northern lights with Canon adapter, because it's very sharp across the frame at f/2.8. It's discouraging to be stuck in 3:2 when the aurora is straight overhead, covering much of the sky. The Fuji body would allow 35 x 33mm, so 4:3 and 5:4 are doable! Almost all northern lights images are 3:2, because we need to get as wide as possible, often.
But that's just one of the many reasons I don't like being stuck in 3:2. I shoot nature landscapes and cityscapes, so I like shooting buildings too.
I've taken some years off, but want to get back into it. I've been so frustrated that multi-aspect never happened for full frame. The GFX 100S could be the solution!
I was just comparing resolutions in DPReview's Studio Scene comparison tool, , but then it stopped working. It also looks like they're removing many of the images already that make the Scene work. While it was up, I was able to see a radical sharpness advantage of the GFX100S over the Canon 5DsR. Very noticeable!
I just now tried to look at DPR's review of the GFX100S, and it says "This page isn't working." So sad to see Amazon completely remove all of that massive work so many did. :(
One review said the 100S' LCD screen can be set to either 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 or 16:9 aspect ratios. Have you tried these? It looks like 1:1 would work with the Canon at 33 x 33mm; though, the other ones probably not as well.
Are you going to be doing a written or video review of you experience with your Canon lenses on the GFX100S? I would LOVE to see that!
If you are having a hard time composing on the LCD by not having linear borders, have you tried maybe taping cardboard borders on the back of the camera, or something else?
I know we can always just crop in post, but it's nice to have an idea of how the image will look while we're shooting it.
Are you having any sharpness problems? I read many years ago that the angle of light projected by the rear of the lens onto the sensor can affect image quality. So because SLR lenses have to focus light more narrowly to go far back behind the mirror box, maybe that's an advantage over using Canon mirrorless lenses with the GFX? I only have Canon SLR lenses, myself.
This is exciting! I'm so glad you told me about this!
I've shot in 35mm mode on the GFX - this takes a 24x36 crop from the sensor (still 60MP) - the viewfinder changes to the crop.
If you set any non full sensor crop [square for example] it will crop the full size image to square and show as square in the viewfinder.
You can't use RF mount lenses [or Z] with the GFX - the mount-sensor [flange] distance is too great.
Off axis lighting is not the problem it was... I've only seen reflection issues with some old [60s/70s] lenses I've adapted for DSLR use [I've loads of testing of this on the web site]
@@KeithCooper It's nice to see they have 35mm mode as an option, but they only offer it in 3:2? Is that true, and if so, why would they only offer 3:2, since most of our Canon lenses can be shot in the other aspect ratios? If they offered 4:3, 5:4, square and 16:9 also, we would have a multi-aspect ratio camera that's user friendly. Is this available?
It sounds like their regular square option works perfectly with 35mm lenses (33x33mm), but their other aspect ratios would include the black and circular areas outside of what is 4:3, 5:4, 3:2 and 16:9 for 35mm lenses.
I'm still very excited about this being the only multi-aspect solution for 35mm lenses now, and I'm open to having to use a cardboard cut out or something to help with framing, if need be.
I also shoot macro flowers, for which 3:2 is seldom the best ration. 4:3, 5:4 or square would often be better.
Great to hear that off axis lighting isn't a problem, so Canon EF lenses will work.
I only have Canon EF lenses. Never did go mirrorless.
The Nikon 14mm f/2.8 has their SLR F mount, which can be used on Canon SLRs with a shallow adaptor, since the mirror box is deeper for Canon.
If I used the Nikon 14mm on the GFX to shoot the northern lights wide open, I would keep it on the slim FE mount adapter, also using an adapter like you're using.
In your last video, it sounds like the oversized TS-E lenses mostly fit within the FGX's sensor (nice to hear); though, there is some vignetting, you said, even from the adapter.
I hope you show us what you see in your GFX's lcd when you do your videos. I'm looking forward to seeing what it looks like, and what's your work-around to frame your images while knowing you'll have to crop the image some in post to get rid of the vignetting, and maybe to shoot at a desired aspect ratio too.
It's interesting that you estimate the 24mm TS-E to be about 20mm on that sensor. That's a fabulous option for the GFX even if people don't want to use tilt or shift. I'll have to get my 24mm TS-E repaired. Somehow it's no longer sharp, but used to be my sharpest wide angle lens. Compared to the 17mm TS-E, i's nice that it also has a filter ring, so I can use a polarizer for landscape. 20mm wide would be sweet!
I imagine that the 17mm TS-E might be 15mm on the GFX, or even wider! That's pretty amazing too, being able to use almost the entire 100MP sensor in super wide angle! Though ,f/4 is too slow for northern lights photos!
You've probably seen that the old 90mm TS-E is also tack sharp, which is probably why they never updated it.
I prefer the sun stars the old TS-Es produced when stopped down, since they don't have so many rays (less sided aperture, I've heard), but the original 24mm TS-E really is soft compared to the updated version.
Very exciting!
Many Canon shooters shoot birds with $12,000 fixed tele lenses. 3:2 is often not the best ratio for birds too. This way they could use all of their expensive glass - probably mostly for still subjects though, since I suppose the autofocus won't track flying birds well, and frames per second will be low. The 5DsR is good enough for me, when I've done it with the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 II. Being able to use that lens on the GFX for all kinds of still would be great too!
$6,000 is a lot of money for a camera body, but we can get so much more out of our Canon SLR glass. The creative options are multiplied when we're not stuck in 3:2, or have to crop from 3:2, especially for wide angle lenses, to be able to increase field of view in square, 5:4, 4:3 and 16:9!
For teles, it increases the field of view too. We're able to use our entire, expensive lens this way, instead of only the 3:2 area.
Fuji should design future models to be used with FF SLR lenses in a user friendly, multi-aspect ratio manner.
It's too bad we can't talk about this in the DPReview forums; though, there are other options like this now.
:)
@@jefffenske1958 I'd note that there are two 3:2 modes - one emulates the size of a 35mm sensor, the other crops the full sensor to 3:2
There is a video later today looking at the TS-E24
I don't really see the problems with other aspect ratios. One reason is that every EF mount lens I've looked at has different characteristics outside of the normal 36x24. I've also been experimenting with all sorts of old lenses - so for example, the Soviet Helios 58/2 I've got covers the entire 33x44 sensor - as does a 1962 Tamron 'Twin Tele' 135/4.5 (both M42 screw fit). If I should manage to get a GFX of my own, I'll do a lot more testing of old lenses [I've dozens tested on the 5Ds and EOS RP]
I'd say Fuji already does pretty well with multi-aspect ratio settings - I do't think it's commonly listed failing [but yes a pity about DPR!]
The TS-E17 comes out at just below 14mm 'equiv' -
The new Fuji 30mm T/S lens will be roughly equivalent to the TS-E24 on 35mm
Actually, I’m going back to film shooting street photography for fine art with Canon. Their F-1, A-1 and other A series SLRs ‘are still’ fantastic!
Yes, if it works for you, go for it ;-)
always good points, many thanks Keith for your brilliant work!
Thanks - appreciated.
I suppose poor old Pentax will never get a mention 😢
just kidding Keith, Nice video about your requirements for work rather than the latest and greatest.
Thanks - one to add to my 'Sure I'll have a look!' list ;-)
As I've got older (50 now) I've used nearly every brand. I've just actually returned to Nikon FF from years with the Fuji X system, and chosen the very basic (by todays standards) Z5. A small lens kit, the IQ is beautiful. BUT saying that, when I look back 15 years of digital photography on screen with my FLICKR page, you cannot tell any difference regarding image quality from back then to now. I'm so glad you're not in the latest gear rat-race.....I now have settled as the cost of the latest gear from all brands is extortionate! The latest greatest is out of my budget......I too feel the DSLR's from the last 10 years are 'good enough' for most people....
Thanks - a touch of realism many seem to eschew... ;-)
These questions are usually from (insecure?) people who want you to validate their chosen system. There was another UK photographer on RUclips who went through the same thing when he recently changed systems. I find them tedious as they really have nothing to do with the photographic process. Keep up the good work though.
Thanks - I've resisted simple 'answers' to this in the past, but I thought that combining what I've done over the last ~20 years would put it in a bit of context ;-)
I think that's wrong. I went to a photo exhibition years ago, where two professional photographers were exhibiting.
I did ask them about their camera choices, because I wanted to know more about the differences between the cameras,
The landscaper had switched from Canon to Nikon for more pixels. Seems sensible.
The wildlife shooter switched from Nikon to Canon for better AF.
Fun fact. In the gallery he had a Sigma 200-500 F2.8. It has a carry handle, I think it should also have wheels.
Fortunately, you're in the enviable position whereby if you do decide to update to a Canon mirrorless body, your existing EOS lenses will work perfectly well on it. I'm a Nikon shooter myself, and fully understand the great benefit the new Z mount offers, but were I in your situation with so much quality Canon gear already, I would simply add an RF body at some point if you need it. The entire EOS ecosystem, DSLR and mirrorless, is very solid stuff.
The company that's going to struggle going forward is Sony. Their E-Mount was originally designed for APS-C, and I suspect that is going to hamstring them somewhat moving forward when attempting to design more exotic lenses at relatively reasonable prices. They *had* first mover advantage in full frame mirrorless, but that lead has all but disappeared now that the established major players have gotten into the full frame mirrorless game.
I don't have any shooting experience with the Sony kit, but when they announced the full frame sensor cameras with the E mount, I'll admit that I thought just that about future expansion and optics.
@@KeithCooperCanon, Nikon and Fuji all seem to have better colour science than Sony. If you were willing to jump ship medium format for landscape seems to make sense.
Yes, I've an adapter to test my Canon tilt/shift lenses with, next time I get a GFX body to use
@@KeithCooper GFX image quality really is a step above.
Talking about your reasons why you started with Canonin earlu 2003-2004, i totally agree, in that period Canon had an edge in digital photography especially with FF sensors. Later thing has changed but there is no reasons to change a system when you got many lenses on a particular system.
Yes - I get asked quite often and the answer ['it depends'] is never the clear cut response I think some people hope for ;-)
At that format (equivalent 35mm) they are fairly similar. Medium format and large format/medium format view camera show more difference. Constantly changing kit is a waste of money.
Yes, it can be an expensive hobby if you want, and feel some need to show what great kit you have ;-)
I totally agree that it’s all about the glass. I was using Nikon film cameras and already had quite a bit of glass when I transitioned to digital. Of great appeal to me with the F mount, I could still use my older manual focus lenses on my digital cameras as well as my early D auto focus.
Up until 2012 my Digital cameras were APSC and I looked with envy at my friends who sported their Canon 5Ds. I knew if I waited, Nikon would come out with a full frame camera that would meet my needs and they did in 2012 with the D800. I still love and occasionally use the camera but finally upgraded to the D850.
I am gradually migrating to mirrorless with a Z6, but I can still use all of my F glass with an adapter. I have so much Nikon glass now, it would be financially impossible for me to switch brands now and retain the same capabilities.
I know some have this thing about adapters, but I do like the way they let you change bodies and use old stuff, if it still works for you.
If I frequented "architecture photography" commercially today, I would invest in a Cambo Actus G 15mm kit for my current camera. This is a (big) miniature large format camera on a focusing rail with tilt and shift. The 15mm has ~no geometric distortion and a very large image circle with a mechanical diaphragm. The mount adapter on the back holding the bellows is available in different camera mounts. This kit with camera adapter of your choice is about US$4,400 excluding sales tax.
A new kit with a 19mm got introduced at about US$3,500 more.
Cambo is an old brand of large format cameras established, and still present, in the Netherlands (EU). "Actus G" is their "camera" for shooting like large format using a (digital) camera as back. And, such a camera needs a lens. Old large format lenses had their optical elements mounted "in" a shutter and the shutter offered exposure time and aperture values.
In the case of the Actus G, there are no electronics to the front of the camera and so you have to use lenses with a mechanical diaphragm. The shutter, is the assumption, is provided by the "back" (being your (digital) camera).
In the film large format past, Cambo offered "cheap" cameras, primarily. A brand that offered the Rolls Royce of large format was Sinar. Linhof came close in robustness but not in easy adjustments. A Cambo had rather simple adjustment mechanisms that forced you to have excellent fine neuromuscular abilities.
The Cambo Actus G seems to offer adjustments that are more like Sinar and that's great, especially with small format (*).
(*) the old school definition of small format was "anything that fits on 127 film". 127 at 40 mm wide was the small version of 120 of 60mm wide. Of the 40mm about 36 was usable and so any format with a side smaller than or equal to 36mm is small format. The 645 format has actual dimensions of 45mm * 56mm and no longer fits on 127 so it is medium format. Apply this to today's "medium format" digital cameras and you'll find that only the big Hasselblad an d the Phase ONE are medium format - the rest, sorry Fuji-Leica, etc., is small format. Even most 645 cameras have small format backs.
Way past what I can afford/justify any more - the business benefits compared with what I've already got would be minimal or negative... Happy to test/review one though if anyone can assist ;-)
However if a do get a Fuji MF body [which I'm careful to describe as 'small medium format' ] I may well resurrect the MPP 5x4 I have in the far corner of my desk, which I made an EF adapter plate for a while ago - total cost ~£20
Keith, you pointed to an area (TS lenses) where Canon is very strong. Nikon is behind and the others; Sony, Fuji, etc. are not even in the game. However, the mirrorless system allows you to adapt from other mounts. I shoot Sony currently. I shot with Canon for 14 years and loved the bodies and the lenses. I do landscapes and wanted max megapixels with reasonably priced lenses. Those requirements brought me to Sony A7RIV and Tamron. I am happy with the combo. Had Canon or Nikon had similar alternative lens choices, I may have chosen Nikon or Canon as I like their ergonomics better than Sony's.
Yes, there is a strong element of finding what works for what you want to do.
I'll be looking at tilt/shift lenses from Fuji later this year, but I doubt they'll be at the economy end of the scale...
@@KeithCooper I know you can adapt TS-E lenses to Fuji medium format, but I wonder about coverage of the larger sensor. I suspect that your shift adjustments will be limited by vignetting.
Yes - the shift is limited, but you do get a larger coverage. I have carried out a few experiments with this and will be returning to it.
@@KeithCooper you can easily adapt Canon EF lenses to the Sony E mount via Sigma's MC-11 adaptor...and this includes 3rd party EF lenses too. This, combined with native E mount lenses (which already massively outnumber anything Canon can offer) makes it a no brainer imho (if you can financially afford the marque swap). I'm not a pro, and not wealthy, so I cannot afford to migrate from Canon to Sony. If I could, I'd have done it.
Plus, it doesn't pay to reward Canon for their BAD, anti-competitive and monopolistic behaviour of using their patents to stifle 3rd party competition. Governments need to start penalising companies like this, and heaviy so.
You say "it is about the lenses", right? Well, to me it's just the very reason to use Nikon system - with DSLR, either full frame od DX bodies you can use virtually ALL NIKKOR glass made from 1970es to nowadays except for the newest Z-line ones. Now, along with newer lenses I happen to own a 135 mm 3.5 Nikkor and a Vivitar series 1 70-200 mm (both "fully manual", no electronics in them, purchased some 40 years ago). These ancient two lenses (just like those made during DSLR era) work perfectly with my DX bodies and a Z5 (with a z-adapter) and I wouldn't exchange them for ALL CANON LENSES EVER PRODUCED, for the life of me.
Indeed, if that works for you then it is indeed so ;-)
Nikon shooter here. This video is brilliant, though I doubt the way a fanboy/fangirl brain is wired would be receptive to such common sense. As long as the gear you have gets you the shot if you are a pro and you got accustomed to the limitation of your gear to the point that it doesn't affect your desired workflow and outcome, then there is no need to change. There is no reason to drive someone to jump systems today unless they need a piece of glass today that is not available on their system of choice, or if they are merely looking for a change for the sake of it. People should really let go of this tribalism. Now, if you were trashing Nikon all the time without trying one, I think the question would have been granted, but the premise of asking someone "why they use X brand and not Y brand?" is just as ridiculous as asking "why do you wear adidas and not Nike sneakers?"
Thanks - spot on
I'm hoping Nikon does update their PC-E lenses some time, but I'm not sure they are very high on their to-do list :-(
@@KeithCooper I agree, I don't think we'll see one for a few more years to come. It's not even on their roadmap!
Every artist photographer has to use the equipment that best delivers the results his/her clients require or his or her passion demands. We are all constrained by budgets, demand, and availability of tools and equipment. I don't see giving up my D850 anytime soon. I am considering a sigma fpl for my portrait business.
Yes, use what works for you...
@Keith Cooper my apologies. I never mentioned how valuable your video is. It is refreshing to see frank, honest, and helpful information from photographers with superior knowledge and abilities to my own. Thank you
Thanks!
Keith you don’t have to explain anything your just saying don’t believe the hype it’s the skills and if the tool is broken then you replace it or upgrade it that’s it. Great video
Thanks - glad it made sense!
Thanks Keith, very interesting
Thanks!
Keith - Canon has patented a TS-E lens with AF capability. Rumours are, it'll be for the RF mount.
Yes - I found one of the original [US] patent applications for it ;-)
Two RF T/S lenses were in a widely promulgated 'roadmap' for RF lenses - that was a couple of years ago though...
Patents don't always translate to products... The key elements of the earlier patent involve motorised tilt/shift movements and an ability to automatically place the plane of focus using two points on a plane. This aspect could just as well be applied to setting up security cameras [Canon has lots of patent applications in this area too, which reference lens tilt]
See info here
www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-ef-lenses-rumours-and-news/
[As an aside, the Canon Rumours pages go back to late 2003, so 20 years this autumn. I don't now update them as often as in the past though]
@@KeithCooper ah nice! Just thought I'd mention just in case you weren't aware of it 🙂
Thanks
FWIW I believe the pages on that site were the first 'Canon Rumours' [note spelling!]
Since about 2009, I've concentrated far more on the articles/reviews - once all the various 'rumor' sites sprung up. Also, there are far fewer new products these days and the companies have got much better in keeping new product info to themselves.
Add to that, I took up making these videos in mid 2020 ;-)
@@KeithCooper Yes, I'm from Australia, so we speak British English and spell colours with a 'u'. Sadly, a lot of our youth are now picking up Americanised spelling and slang and it's pretty disgraceful imho.
I don't really care much for rumours to be entirely honest - they're rarely right. And, as you said, I typically wait for a new camera patiently.
My only reasons for wanting to hop from Canon to Sony are that I believe Sony offers much better value for money, has a much larger lens array available to the consumer, and i do believe that Sony is ahead in the sensor development department. I honestly think Canon is struggling in that respect (hence a lack of BSI or stacked sensors from them). And, of course, my largest reason is that I firmly believe that Canon should be not only punished legally, but punished by consumers for their anti competitive behaviours vs 3rd party lens manufacturers. They are estabilishing a monoply for Canon RF len mount lenses and i do NOT like that type of behaviour. It does nothing to benefit the consumer. and obviously discourages competition, leading to poorer choices, higher prices and typically, from my experience, poorer quality products.
Erudite as always Keith. I have the same story in reverse - lol. I was using canon film cameras when the Nikon D3 came out and that was nice but who could afford that, (yeah I know but I'm just a mums and dads amateur). But then they brought out the D700 and I thought right digital is here for the masses. Now I'm invested, and as you said about your Canon gear, I cant justify the cost or any solid reason for switching gear. I understand tilt shift functionality because I own a Toyo 4x5 large format camera. Cumbersome. Have you ever done hand held tilt shift photography or is it always tripod mounted
Thanks - it's an expensive switch, unless you've someone assisting it ;-)
Ah yes hand held tilt/shift... A 'heresy' I frequently engage with ;-)
My TS-E24 is my general 'walk-round' lens when I'm on holiday and may not even have a tripod with me. Less so for paying work, but I'm not averse to it - even when testing an H6D 100C with HTS adapter...
My first camera was a Canon. My grandfather recommended the brand to me and I've been using Canon ever since.
Had grandpa suggested Nikon it's likely I'd be a Nikon man.
We drive a Chevy cause our family dives them. Same with Ford or Dodge.
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica, etc. are all excellent cameras. What matters is how much you really wanna spend and how big your ego is.
Yes, for a lot of photography, the choice of gear is not so important.
That said I was the first in our family to take up photography, and my choice of a Russian Zorki 4 has had little influence on my photographic career ;-)
I use Nikon due to that I start with them in the 70ties. It not cost effective to change system for an armature. I'm in the process to upgrade my F-system to 45Mpix. I will get a used D850, a used 19mmF4.0 PC and an used 400mmF2.8 G VR. I will get a new 70-200mmF2.8 E VR. Then after a few year I have to decide to get Z8 or start with Fuji GFX100S system for landscape and keep the Nikon system for wildlife. I use D700, 12 Mpix and D800E 36Mpix today.
Yes - knowing what you want to do and how you got to where you are is important for most people.
@@KeithCooper My problem is that I often get stuck on getting hardware instead of using them to grow as an artist.. I often have wondered if its my Engineering background that cause it. You seem to have it under control though. I took a 7 year brake from equipment and only concentrate on learning art theory but that caused me to take less pictures. My Nikon D300 12 Mpix DX camera broke down 2 year ago and since then I have upgraded my Equipment slowly, but not taking allot of pictures.
Yes, my interest in hardware is kept under check by writing articles and now the videos ;-)
It means I don't even think much about the hardware when out - just what i want to photograph and why. The 'how' is taken care of.
as the old adage goes: marry the glass, date the camera...
Not heard that one - have to agree ;-)
My Nikons are SO MUCH more intuitive and ergonomic than Canons and Sonys. My Nikon lenses are wonderful. Enjoy your Canons that you've been using since 2004. You've made good choices for your particular needs. I'll continue with my Nikons that I've used professionally since 1979. Isn't photography grand?!
Good for you - it's about choices which work for you
I was a Nikon user starting with a Nikonos II underwater camera in 1969 then a pair of Nikon Fs to do PJ work in college. I later upgraded my u/w gear to Nikonos V and SB-101 flash and got an N8008 DLSR for above water shooting in the 80s and 90s. I switched to Canon in 2004 with a 20D because of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and 10-22mm EF-S, rounding out my “Holy Trinity” with the 24-70mm f/2.8.
Another reason I switched to Canon was the E-TTL II flash system which had just been introduced. I had learned to shoot with dual flash in a fill/key configuration in the 1970s working as assistant to wedding pro Monte Zucker and the Canon flash system was much better than what Nikon offered.
A third technical reason was at the time Nikon was using CCD sensor technology but Canon was using CMOS.
As far a camera bodies? I upgraded to a 50D in 2008 and it was sufficient for my needs until recently when I started doing wildlife photography and videos. I just upgraded to a R6mkII but am still using the EF lenses, the 20-700mm with a 2x extender with good results. The AF technology in the R6mkII, IQ and the ability to customized the UI is nothing short of amazing.
Thanks for that - it's alway interesting what led people's 'journey' from a camera/lens POV
Have you ever used Cambo actus equipment?
Nope - never had the opportunity to try it.
Most expensive stuff I get to try is just on loan...
As ever, should a supplier read this, just give me a shout!
Um, the EF mount is basically in the same boat as the F-mount. Both are being discontinued. I actually chose Nikon over Canon when starting out because of the long-life of the F-mount at that time (being that they had maintained the same bayonet style mount since the 1960's up through the 2020 when they sort of discontinued the F-mount lens production... there is still some going on but they are winding it down). So for me, it was being able to adapt realy old AI and AIS lenses to my "modern" DSLR camera if I wanted to (not that I did much of that, but it gave me the option). I think now with the RF from Canon and the Z from Nikon, Nikon has realized the overall value of having lots of options for lenses be it OEM or third party and if lenses are of concern, this is where I think Sony and Nikon (with ML) is going to be better over canon. Canon currently is going after anyone making an AF RF mount lens, whereas Nikon doesn't seem to "care" as long as it doesn't directly compete with their Z OEM lenses (which none do that I'm aware of, except maybe the Viltrox 85 and 35mm FF lenses, but so far Nikon has not said anything or asked Viltrox to stop making those that I'm aware of). I think they see the value in allowing some lenses to be made, as it probably allows Nikon to focus on more important things for the pro-sumer and pro level and let someone else sort of fill in the budget end of things (hence why we just heard about Sigma now doing some APS-C lenses for Nikon Z). And this will become more of a problem for Canon (third party lens support) if NIkon releases their rumored Z8 and/or a competitor to the R5/R6 that delivers the same or better performance, because people will also want lens options, and even some pro-sumer shooters don't want to be locked into ONLY OEM lenses. So I think Nikon and Sony have the "right" approach here and Canon needs to get onboard. That's one reason I personally didn't bother with the Canon R system (plus I had left over F-mount lenses so upgrading to the Z lenses I could do over time so it only made financial sense for me to just stick with Nikon, and since I mainly do travel, landscape and portraiture, the shortcomings of the current Z system don't really hamper my photography.)
Yes - use what works is always my line...
The video was more aimed at those who'd advocate a particular brand for no good reason and ignore what it was I was doing photography for. ;-)
Given my use of tilt/shift lenses, Canon's current RF lens policies would impinge minimally since very few companies makes them (and Laowa offers RF mount, albeit fully manual)
Canon had a very good run from the late 1980s when they switched to an electronic focus system, right up to the 5DII, which introduced the hybrid stills-video cameras we have today. However, Nikon and Canon were getting their backsides kicked by companies who took mirrorless cameras seriously. Canon's EF mount enjoyed huge customer loyalty, and is still the number one adapted lens to every brand's mirrorless cameras, including Canon's own.
I use a lot of cameras and I have the most problems with F mount because they twist on backwards. Does the Z mount have the same quirtk?
Someone will have to say - I can't remember...
Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony etc makes little difference now. What really creates the 'image that pays' is the computer software to tidy up (manipulate) the original photograph.
It helps as part of the process, but once again what works best depends on what you do and why...
That's a weird question. I don't use Canon. So what? Canon has nice own brand tilt & shift lenses for architects
Yes, maybe weird, but it's been one I still get asked every so often
I never understood why no rehousing services or kits ever became a thing. The flange difference between Nikon F and Canon EF is only 2mm. Then again, why don’t we have modern Visoflex type gear for mirrorless ( we could bypass the annoyances of EVF.) I love how Canon renders in black and white, but Nikon does better color. Those older Canons do render amazing reds, though. Never considered the advantages of throat diameter for tilt shift. Ultimately, I view Canon EF as a Tesla and Nikon F as a fully manual Porsche. Pick your poison. Driving stick in city traffic is not fun. That Nikon 56mm 1.4G is a lens from another world , tho.
It's a tricky low-volume business. I have a local specialist optics company which does it for cine lenses, where there is the demand and money.
I've seen people regard my TS-E lenses as relics, just because I'm focusing manually.
@@KeithCooper bet they don’t view Cooke lenses as relics!
you're pronouncing it CORRECTLY man!! well done !!
I'll take that... ;-)
I am slowly switching over to Fuji, because I’m not happy with the direction Nikon has gone in the Z series. Cameras were absolute rubbish until you got to the Z72 which was a pretty good camera and clearly desert nine is a great camera but seriously only professionals can afford it. All really rich people. I’m not happy with the mid tier Z cameras that were released. They were faulty bad auto focus and just absolutely crap cameras that were overpriced and their lenses were ridiculously priced as well so I switched to fuji … Fuji make affordable cameras and affordable lenses for the people. So did some other brands as well, but I’m not a fan of Nikon and they’re releasing of an 85 1.2 which is essentially $4000 for one lens. What were they thinking who can seriously afford this great land is fantastic. Good on you. Fantastic fabulous but you didn’t release any budget lenses in the last four years. They can …f…off
Yes, some of Nikon's execution of the change to Z has been questionable, but Canon have been criticised for similar aspects...
One of my most reliable regular web site visits is for Thom Hogan's stuff - he has the business back ground and technical knowledge to put a lot of this stuff in proper context.
@@KeithCooper Yeah I agree totally the Z cameras are not very good except for the Z7 to improve the lot and clearly the Z9 is a good camera but so it should be for 7000 bucks too… What has annoyed me about an icon in the last two years though is they have targeted most of their cameras towards professionals they only come out with one camera that was affordable to the general population and that was the ZFC and that frankly is a terrible camera.
I have the best combination at the moment I have a NikonD850 for landscapes and I’m using a Fuji XT5 for my portrait and other professional work that I do.
The question/reproach about Nikon, that triggered the video, to me, is totally invalid and irrelevant. Now, I am a Nikon shooter since 1975 and at 35mm format, since then, always shot pro bodies with pro grade prime lenses - zero zooms for stills in my life. That personal private "no zooms policy" with today's Z 2.8 "S" class Nikons is no longer relevant either. The zooms are about as good as the primes. When I bought into Nikon, I had tried a Leica M4 for some time, (Asahi) Pentax 35mm as well as Pentax 6*7, and professionally shot Hasselblad 500 series and large format up to 8"*10". Leica glass was excellent and centre image a bit sharper than Nikon, but long telephoto lenses a total pain in the anatomy (a Leica needed a Visoflex mirror box for long lenses). And then macro, close-ups, etc.
Like you, Keith, I needed a comprehensive system available with great integration and professional reliability and robustness. My recurring rant about the F-mount lenses was (a) chromatic aberration (actually worse in fast lenses) and (b) tint-differences between lenses. The Z system solves all that and silenced me.
And this is where this Nikon shooter of ~5 decades agrees with Keith that Nikon at several moments in time did not offer what "we" needed. Between the D system (F mount) and the migration to the Z system, I seriously considered another brand than Nikon. Some 12 Nikon speedlights kept me with Nikon. Today, with the Z system, I'm as happy as happy can be (I have a couple nagging things between me and Nikon, though).
Yes - I hope I'm quite clear in that the video is a personal view and definitely not a recommendation!
Ppl keep saying it's all about the lenses. Don't camera manufacturer change the lense mount regularly? Nevermind the latest tech
People say it, because a lot of the time it is actually true ;-)
Regularly? Given the EF mount was started in 1987, the F mount in the 60's and only in the last few years have we seen moves to RF and Z, it's hardly a rapid turnover.
Regularly ever 50 years, my grandchildren will be able to buy the next mount from Nikon, I will be well gone by then.
Fuji will release two tilt shift lenses this year, a 30mm and 110mm for their GFX medium format cameras.
Yes, that's why I'm testing Fuji gear - they want me to test them both... ;-) :-)
You invest in a system, simple as that - unless you have a bottomless pit of money
A shift needs money and a good reason to do it ;-)
People should think about taking pictures rather then the gear used to take pictures.... Every gear system is capable of taking great pictures. Only one thing.... I hate smartphones they blow away all the romanticism beyond photography...
Yes, and I'm not a phone fan - partly because of my poor close-up eyesight
Wish Nikon could ragain its position as in the ago of DSLR.
If that means they produce a range of kit which matches market requirements, then who wouldn't ;-)
@Keith Cooper Yes,for the Z lineup,there are merely some pieces could compete with Sony and Canon.
Z mount PC-E lenses would interest me...
@@KeithCooper Sure,the glass is still excellent.
If it's all about the lenses I darn sure would not pick Canon, nor Nikon.
What specific photographic requirements make you say that?
Obviously for the type if photography I do (which is why I discuss it in the video) it makes a lot of sense
@@KeithCooper It's based on my use of Canon glass over the last 25 years. I find it easily out classed by Sony glass, especially glass one might consider as "consumer" grade/priced.
Still doesn't answer really the question...
Damming two entire manufacturers of lenses and taking aim at the low end of their range seems somewhat sweeping...
If Sony produced specialised lenses of the type I use. I'd happily look at them - they don't... Same would probably go for many professional users of the higher end Nikon lenses...
As the video says, it's about the reason I use certain lenses for my work, others may choose otherwise based on what matters to them.
@@KeithCooper To each their own. Just relating my experience.
Nikon made most of the opticals binoculars rangefinder’s for battleships for the Japan in wwii My father would not touch Nikon
And my Mum wouldn't shop at Lidl
Times change...
If this man Keith isn't using Nikon, then I'm getting rid of all my crappy nikon equipment.... yucky 🤮
Always happy to take it off your hands... ;-)
They focus the wrong direction
Ah, now that's one aspect I wasn't troubled by ;-)
OH.............I think BMW is better than Mercedes Benz............................who cares................ its a personal choice and up to YOU
Yes... but still I get asked why? ;-) :-)
18 minutes to say "I have considerable sunk cost, and I can't justify the money".
It is utterly depressing that photographers have to make this sort of content just to get attention.
Nope - no big red letters! Thanks for appreciating the whole channel and what it's about ;-) The next video will indeed be a return to printing [31mins and B&W!]
Thanks - you can never please them all ;-)
I've no plans for music and a grand sweeping introduction...
It was 'shouty youtube' which put me off doing videos for years ;-)
The Nikon one has definitely given a boost to the channel, and hopefully some off my 'detail stuff' as well