4 Reasons Why Caleb Pike Does Not Recommend Nikon Cameras for Video

10/29/2014 ISO 1200 Magazine 1 Comments

PLEASE READ - People seem to be confusing the purpose of this video. Please understand 3 things before watching the video above:

1) I made this video because people ask me why I don't shoot with Nikon cameras. I'm not here trying to preach against Nikon, just answering a question with video.

2) This is MY opinion to be taken as just that, an opinion, not law. These are the reasons I personally don't use Nikon. Not anyone else's.

3) If you have chosen Nikon as your camera system, good for you! I don't have anything against Nikon shooters!

Find more videos, tutorials and review at http://dslrvideoshooter.com

Read the update original post -here-
Text and video via DSLR Video Shooter


Anonymous said...

Your Rationales, Refuted.

• Lens mount. You are using Nikon lenses. And, not using “any” Canon lenses. Yet, your logic predominantly revolves around the option to use other glass that you apparently have already dismissed.

• History of Video. Sorta irrelevant. If Company X comes out with an amazing camera next month, people will use it, without regard to the fact that Canon had better output than the nonexistent Company X last month. How long has RED been in existence? Does the fact that Canon made video camcorders in the 80s have anything to do with a 5D’s performance versus a RED camera today?

• Color. If you are serious about video, and will actually recognize color differences between a Canon and a Nikon dSLR, wouldn’t you also be applying COLOR GRADING atop the raw chip output? And, while you’re endorsing Sony cameras along with Canon and Panasonic, shouldn’t it be considered that the Nikons use a Sony chip? So, it’s NOT the sensor, then, is it?

• The “spectrum of professionals” thing. Well, Canon probably owns the sector because it was first with the 5D. People tend to not enjoy buying new sets of lenses after investing in those for a particular mount. So, there’s that. But, whatever — that’s never a reason not to use something else. Unless you’re relying on a rental market or borrowing components from a larger user pool, a person should invest in what works best for him. One could make the same argument for Canon over Nikon for Fashion Stills Photographers. Canon has owned that market for a long time. Since the EOS mount, perhaps. My theory is that it was because Canon primes almost invariably created better bokeh, even before bokeh was actually recognized and given a name. But, still — Peter Lindbergh was one of the most prominent fashion photographers of the film+EOS era and he shot Nikons. Same with Ellen Von Unwerth. There are many more ‘exceptions’ to the ‘rule.’ Would their work be better if shot on Canons? Different, perhaps. With a different signature, perhaps. But, maybe those differences and those signatures are part of their successes.

• Your race car analogy is just crazy-flawed. Not sure where to start, but in the highest-level series, do they really choose the manufacturers/engines they get to race? Not so much. They’re picked up by teams, based on merit in lower series, and ‘get’ to drive what’s given to them….. No one goes into Formula 1 and says, “hmmm… Ferraris are great. They have the winningest heritage. I’ll drive a Ferrari.”

So, yeah. Disclosure: I’ve been a Canon guy for 25 years, while also using some Nikon film cameras. The only digitals i’ve owned have been the Canon 5D and 5DMkII. So, it’s not like i feel a need to defend Nikon. I just have a problem with ‘bad logic’ being publicly espoused in the form of ‘expertise’ or advice. And, nothing against you, either. I’d never heard of you and have no agenda. You clearly stated this is all opinion, and that you’re just answering a question. I just don’t think these answers are in any way relevant. There are probably better reasons than what are presented here.