Please stop brand bragging / bashing

[RichF]

ENOUGH ALREADY

Canon, Nikon, Sony, and others make great cameras. They have long histories in different product areas. Is one absolutely better than the others, NO. Does one have an advantage over the others in selective areas, YES. There is no right or wrong choices, there is only a right or wrong choice for you, or perhaps I should say better choice for you. My choice may be different than yours. Just like ice cream flavors - chocolate or vanilla (okay, rocky road, strawberry, ...) but you get my drift. We all like different flavors - that is why BR has 31 flavors and the ice cream section in the grocery store is often 20 feet (6 meters) long or longer.

Cameras are similar. Twice in my life I have switched between Canon and Nikon. I did it for what I thought was a good reason at the time. It was my choice, just like it you choice to buy a Canon, Fuji, Hasselblad, Nikon, Olympus, Phase One, or Sony system. You will pick the system or camera, which at the time of the decision, is right for you.

It is reasonable to ask someone why they like a particular system or camera or to compare cameras (that they have used), but PLEASE DO NOT MAKE GLOBAL STATEMENTS ABOUT BRANDS. All the camera manufacturer make great products, albeit different ones. Let's learn from each other, not attack and put down each other's choices.

 

[EricBowles]

Thanks, Rich.

And with global statements as you describe, it very possible someone has figured out a technique or settings that create a different experience. Regardless of brand, I'd like to hear more about techniques that work. Given the time that goes into figuring out some of these cameras, I'd venture to say nobody has figured out optimal settings for all subjects and situations for one brand - much less multiple brands.

 

[Craig Yuill]

I agree with your thoughts that we need to select the brand(s) that work best for us, and respect each other’s equipment choices. I cannot say that I have seen much in the way of arguments or trash talking about which brand is best. I have generally found people who post messages on this site to be respectful. I was recently given advice regarding best choice a Nikon DSLR by former Nikon users who have moved on to other brands’ mirrorless system. No one tried to convince me that my proposed choices were bad, and that I should look at other products. If your experiences have been different, that is a real shame. And I say again that I agree that we should respect each other’s choices.

 

[Abinoone]

ENOUGH ALREADY

Canon, Nikon, Sony, and others make great cameras. They have long histories in different product areas. Is one absolutely better than the others, NO. Does one have an advantage over the others in selective areas, YES. There is no right or wrong choices, there is only a right or wrong choice for you, or perhaps I should say better choice for you. My choice may be different than yours. Just like ice cream flavors - chocolate or vanilla (okay, rocky road, strawberry, ...) but you get my drift. We all like different flavors - that is why BR has 31 flavors and the ice cream section in the grocery store is often 20 feet (6 meters) long or longer.

Cameras are similar. Twice in my life I have switched between Canon and Nikon. I did it for what I thought was a good reason at the time. It was my choice, just like it you choice to buy a Canon, Fuji, Hasselblad, Nikon, Olympus, Phase One, or Sony system. You will pick the system or camera, which at the time of the decision, is right for you.

It is reasonable to ask someone why they like a particular system or camera or to compare cameras (that they have used), but PLEASE DO NOT MAKE GLOBAL STATEMENTS ABOUT BRANDS. All the camera manufacturer make great products, albeit different ones. Let's learn from each other, not attack and put down each other's choices.

Now, wait just a minute, Rich! Everyone knows that B&J's Chunky Monkey is the absolute best ice cream in existence!!

 

[pnbarne]

When it comes to spending my money on photo gear I am a late adapter. I carefully follow the experiences and comments of others. I may never buy a mirrorless camera mostly because I have reached an age where it is a bad investment. Nonetheless, I follow the chatter just in case.

Personally, I haven’t seen any abusive comments on this forum. Others, yes. I usually don’t check in with them too often.

 

[Palmor]

ENOUGH ALREADY

Canon, Nikon, Sony, and others make great cameras. They have long histories in different product areas. Is one absolutely better than the others, NO. Does one have an advantage over the others in selective areas, YES. There is no right or wrong choices, there is only a right or wrong choice for you, or perhaps I should say better choice for you. My choice may be different than yours. Just like ice cream flavors - chocolate or vanilla (okay, rocky road, strawberry, ...) but you get my drift. We all like different flavors - that is why BR has 31 flavors and the ice cream section in the grocery store is often 20 feet (6 meters) long or longer.

Cameras are similar. Twice in my life I have switched between Canon and Nikon. I did it for what I thought was a good reason at the time. It was my choice, just like it you choice to buy a Canon, Fuji, Hasselblad, Nikon, Olympus, Phase One, or Sony system. You will pick the system or camera, which at the time of the decision, is right for you.

It is reasonable to ask someone why they like a particular system or camera or to compare cameras (that they have used), but PLEASE DO NOT MAKE GLOBAL STATEMENTS ABOUT BRANDS. All the camera manufacturer make great products, albeit different ones. Let's learn from each other, not attack and put down each other's choices.

I see very little if any of this on this forum, in fact I see people go out of their way to not brand bash. Maybe I'm just not reading the right threads?

 

[Butlerkid]

I see very little if any of this on this forum, in fact I see people go out of their way to not brand bash. Maybe I'm just not reading the right threads?

When an op starts a thread with a question about using Brand X or still waiting for a product from Brand X, some folks see that as an opportunity to extol other brands, availablity of products from other brands, etc. etc. and thus turn the thread into a discussion (AGAIN) about the virtues and faults of various brands. We are all aware that there a strong products from all the top brands. But sometimes members just want to discuss a particular brand and/or get their question answered without all the "drama" of hearing about brands they are not interested in.

 

[vivid]

I am not sure which posts this request is aimed at, but as someone who has used - and still use - cameras from Canon, Nikon and Sony, I hope this forum continues to foster an atmosphere where constructive criticism and direct comparisons may be made in good faith. If I am looking to spend a serious chunk of money on camera gear, there is tremendous value in such a resource, whereas the sentiment of "they are all good enough" is not particularly helpful.

Doubtlessly all of the 3 aforementioned manufacturers offer products that photographers can use to produce good results. But there are also clear differences in capability when it comes to different use cases. Everyone benefits from open, clearheaded discussions of these differences.

 

[Butlerkid]

I am not sure which posts this request is aimed at, but as someone who has used - and still use - cameras from Canon, Nikon and Sony, I hope this forum continues to foster an atmosphere where constructive criticism and direct comparisons may be made in good faith. If I am looking to spend a serious chunk of money on camera gear, there is tremendous value in such a resource, whereas the sentiment of "they are all good enough" is not particularly helpful.

Doubtlessly all of the 3 aforementioned manufacturers offer products that photographers can use to produce good results. But there are also clear differences in capability when it comes to different use cases. Everyone benefits from open, clearheaded discussions of these differences.

I certainly agree with you!!!! But sometimes folks have already made their decision and are happy with the path they are on.....

 

[RichF]

I am not sure which posts this request is aimed at, but as someone who has used - and still use - cameras from Canon, Nikon and Sony, I hope this forum continues to foster an atmosphere where constructive criticism and direct comparisons may be made in good faith. If I am looking to spend a serious chunk of money on camera gear, there is tremendous value in such a resource, whereas the sentiment of "they are all good enough" is not particularly helpful.

Doubtlessly all of the 3 aforementioned manufacturers offer products that photographers can use to produce good results. But there are also clear differences in capability when it comes to different use cases. Everyone benefits from open, clearheaded discussions of these differences.

If you have first hand knowledge of 2 cameras, I doubt many people know the entire line of 2 camera brands, please share that in an honest manner without criticizing or demeaning the other brand. Talk specifics, not generalities, knowing that specific will change over time. When I switched from Canon to Nikon I missed the "Q" button on the back of the Canon. We can all learned from one another but please keep you comments fact basis, not broad generalities that disparage the other brand.

 

[bleirer]

If you have first hand knowledge of 2 cameras, I doubt many people know the entire line of 2 camera brands, please share that in an honest manner without criticizing or demeaning the other brand. Talk specifics, not generalities, knowing that specific will change over time. When I switched from Canon to Nikon I missed the "Q" button on the back of the Canon. We can all learned from one another but please keep you comments fact basis, not broad generalities that disparage the other brand.

Wait, there's a Q button?

 

[EricBowles]

I am not sure which posts this request is aimed at, but as someone who has used - and still use - cameras from Canon, Nikon and Sony, I hope this forum continues to foster an atmosphere where constructive criticism and direct comparisons may be made in good faith. If I am looking to spend a serious chunk of money on camera gear, there is tremendous value in such a resource, whereas the sentiment of "they are all good enough" is not particularly helpful.

Doubtlessly all of the 3 aforementioned manufacturers offer products that photographers can use to produce good results. But there are also clear differences in capability when it comes to different use cases. Everyone benefits from open, clearheaded discussions of these differences.

While that is true, the differences are a lot smaller than many discussions would indicate. For example, differences may be for a specific species rather than a genre or subject. I was teaching a workshop recently and one person with a camera that had great performance with Animal Eye AF missed on 90% of the images of a barred owl from 10-12 feet away. The same camera focused perfectly in a reptile photography workshop when the subject was a turtle, but would not focus at all when the subject was a snake. I've photographed dogs with my Nikon camera and had six different dogs perfectly in focus using Animal Eye AF - but then a brindle dog came up and it would not focus on 100% of the shots so I simply changed AF modes. Photographing an awards ceremony, I stopped using Eye AF because I missed two images out of 75 (97% success rate) - and switched to a different mode and did not miss anything. The details and conditions for specific situations are very useful in a discussion of performance, but none of these use cases would indicate a brand or even a specific camera model was better or worse than another.

I'd be surprised if the camera stops anyone from getting the shot. It's almost always skill, technique, and knowledge about how to be successful and get the shot. That's interesting because invariably we blame the gear rather than the person using the gear. Furthermore it takes a very high level of expertise and field work to refine settings and technique with a new camera and using new technologies.

 

[RichF]

While that is true, the differences are a lot smaller than many discussions would indicate. For example, differences may be for a specific species rather than a genre or subject. I was teaching a workshop recently and one person with a camera that had great performance with Animal Eye AF missed on 90% of the images of a barred owl from 10-12 feet away. The same camera focused perfectly in a reptile photography workshop when the subject was a turtle, but would not focus at all when the subject was a snake. I've photographed dogs with my Nikon camera and had six different dogs perfectly in focus using Animal Eye AF - but then a brindle dog came up and it would not focus on 100% of the shots so I simply changed AF modes. Photographing an awards ceremony, I stopped using Eye AF because I missed two images out of 75 (97% success rate) - and switched to a different mode and did not miss anything. The details and conditions for specific situations are very useful in a discussion of performance, but none of these use cases would indicate a brand or even a specific camera model was better or worse than another.

I'd be surprised if the camera stops anyone from getting the shot. It's almost always skill, technique, and knowledge about how to be successful and get the shot. That's interesting because invariably we blame the gear rather than the person using the gear. Furthermore it takes a very high level of expertise and field work to refine settings and technique with a new camera and using new technologies.

99.44% of the time the photographer is the limiting factor, not the camera

 

[RichF]

Wait, there's a Q button?

Get a Canon to find out I assume your kidding, if not borrow a Canon. I thought it was great way to interact with the camera.

 

[RichF]

Thanks, Rich.

And with global statements as you describe, it very possible someone has figured out a technique or settings that create a different experience. Regardless of brand, I'd like to hear more about techniques that work. Given the time that goes into figuring out some of these cameras, I'd venture to say nobody has figured out optimal settings for all subjects and situations for one brand - much less multiple brands.

Very true.

 

[John Navitsky]

99.44% of the time the photographer is the limiting factor, not the camera

if you're not getting the shots with any of these new cameras, the camera isn't the problem. it's a miracle we even had pictures before 2022!

 

[vivid]

I'd be surprised if the camera stops anyone from getting the shot. It's almost always skill, technique, and knowledge about how to be successful and get the shot. That's interesting because invariably we blame the gear rather than the person using the gear.

It's pretty much axiomatic that it's the person behind the camera and not the camera that gets the shot. But I disagree with the assertion that the differences between the bodies are minute enough to be waved away and for any observed discrepancies to become immediately attributable to pilot error. Differences do exist. Sometimes they are minor. Sometimes they are significant.

Furthermore, photographers who do it in the professional capacity - or those who have the luxury to dedicate a lot of time to their hobby - may tend to underestimate the impact that gear may have on the results of an amateur photographer with a limited amount of time. Have I lost more wildlife shots due to my substandard fieldcraft or technique rather than my equipment? Certainly. That is for me to recognize and improve on. It, however, does not mean that the results I am capable of getting with brand A are equal to those with brand B - or that the time/effort in getting them was equal - or that the only factor in these differences is the guy with the finger on the shutter release.

 

[Darrellhar]

Honestly this is the very reason why I end up not spending as much time as I would really like to on this and other forums. It really is annoying. I originally had not seen it here as much but either I'm spending more time here and noticing it more or it has increased.

 

[John Navitsky]

It's pretty much axiomatic that it's the person behind the camera and not the camera that gets the shot. But I disagree with the assertion that the differences between the bodies are minute enough to be waved away and for any observed discrepancies to become immediately attributable to pilot error. Differences do exist. Sometimes they are minor. Sometimes they are significant.

certainly if someone is asking to help them make a new get purchase or is interesting in weighing the pros and cons of making a change we should provide them the best feedback possible, even within the same brand

 

[Steve]

Honesty, I don't really see that much brand bashing here and if anyone does, I invite you to let me know with the report button.

However, note that there's a difference between saying something like, "Sony Sucks!" to "I prefer the Z9 over the Sony A1 because I think it's more rugged". I think the a statement like the second one is often misconstrued as brand bashing when it's really not - it's simply an option.

I think some of the issue is that when someone expresses an option counter to someone else's, the reader may imply something that's really not there (in the case of the example above, they may feel like the poster is saying the a1 sucks because it's not as rugged as a Z9, even though that was never stated). Also, keep in mind there's no way to have a constructive discussion if preferences are treated like brand attacks.

 

[Rassie]

I've been following many of the posts where some of the features of specific cameras are touted to be better than others. Just recently there was a discussion on this forum about Sony A1 as a replacement for a Nikon D850, and then I threw the Nikon Z9 in as an option for consideration, and there was a discussion about how good each of the A1 and Z9 was regarding eye-af tracking, etc. Sometimes such comparative discussions can be a good thing, sometimes not. I reckon it's very important to consider carefully what the OP is saying or asking so that we specifically deal with that in the ensuing discussion. It is easy for any one of us to say the wrong thing, or say something that's not relevant to the discussion, and cause offense in the process.

My photography hobby started back around 1970 with a Kodak Instamatic. From there I progressed to other point-and-shoot cameras, then to a Pentax SLR circa 1978, then the first digital point and shoot in 2000, then on to DSLR's. Never during this long hobby of mine had I ever had a top of the line camera and lenses since I had to balance my needs rather than wants against the fact that photography is a hobby for me and not a profession.

So today I use a Nikon Z6II and a Nikkor 200-500mm F/5.6 for wildlife and BIF work. Would I love a Nikkor 500mm PF F/5.6 lens? Absolutely. Can I justify its cost? Not really, especially since I hope to source the Nikkor Z 200-600mm as soon as that launches. So in the meantime I have to make do with a less than stellar performing lens for BIF work. The lack of reach I experience with this lens on the full frame Z6II versus the DX Nikon DSLR's I used in the past also is problematic. For that reason I recently acquired a TC-14E III to extend my reach. So here I am with a body that's not best suited for shooting fast-moving wildlife, coupled with a slow-focusing lens, and accurate focus becomes spotty with the teleconverter mounted. I drool with desire when I think of the A1, R5, or Z9, but I won't purchase one of those unless I unexpectedly inherit a lot of cash from some distant relative.

So while the fortunate folks on this forum go out with the top cameras from Nikon, Sony or Canon and they machine-gun the flying birds and fast-movers, and get a keeper rate upwards of 80% or more, I have to work that much harder to get a keeper rate of less than 50%. But man, the satisfaction of getting at least a few keepers from such an outing is for me that much more rewarding than it might have been had I been getting a sky-high keeper rate because of the mechanical abilities of a super camera/lens combo. It's easy to become used to such great capabilities in a camera and start taking them for granted. Now if Nikon can improve the subject tracking of my Z6II with firmware and provide me with a more capable lens, I would probably be relatively satisfied, even while I will still envy those who can spend the bigger bucks on the more capable gear.

 

[bleirer]

Get a Canon to find out I assume your kidding, if not borrow a Canon. I thought it was great way to interact with the camera.

I was just funnin' I'm a longtime Canonite. I use that button a lot but on mine the Q is so tiny it looks like a magnifying glass icon but the word SET on the same button is large, so I call it the set button. Either way it is useful especially in mirrorless where the choices are in the viewfinder.

Too bad Nikon or Sony don't have anything even remotely similar to it though.

 

[gdecamp]

This same nonsense has been going on for 20+ years but is more pravalent now because of the internet. Everyone is an expert these days. Oh well, it's more fun to show how good you and your gear is by posting an image or two now and then but sadly there is not enough of that! I wonder why?

 

[FB101]

Everyone should check Jerry55’s new thread. He sells ecstasy pills at unbeatable prices. It should help with getting along

 

[Abinoone]

I've been following many of the posts where some of the features of specific cameras are touted to be better than others. Just recently there was a discussion on this forum about Sony A1 as a replacement for a Nikon D850, and then I threw the Nikon Z9 in as an option for consideration, and there was a discussion about how good each of the A1 and Z9 was regarding eye-af tracking, etc. Sometimes such comparative discussions can be a good thing, sometimes not. I reckon it's very important to consider carefully what the OP is saying or asking so that we specifically deal with that in the ensuing discussion. It is easy for any one of us to say the wrong thing, or say something that's not relevant to the discussion, and cause offense in the process.

My photography hobby started back around 1970 with a Kodak Instamatic. From there I progressed to other point-and-shoot cameras, then to a Pentax SLR circa 1978, then the first digital point and shoot in 2000, then on to DSLR's. Never during this long hobby of mine had I ever had a top of the line camera and lenses since I had to balance my needs rather than wants against the fact that photography is a hobby for me and not a profession.

So today I use a Nikon Z6II and a Nikkor 200-500mm F/5.6 for wildlife and BIF work. Would I love a Nikkor 500mm PF F/5.6 lens? Absolutely. Can I justify its cost? Not really, especially since I hope to source the Nikkor Z 200-600mm as soon as that launches. So in the meantime I have to make do with a less than stellar performing lens for BIF work. The lack of reach I experience with this lens on the full frame Z6II versus the DX Nikon DSLR's I used in the past also is problematic. For that reason I recently acquired a TC-14E III to extend my reach. So here I am with a body that's not best suited for shooting fast-moving wildlife, coupled with a slow-focusing lens, and accurate focus becomes spotty with the teleconverter mounted. I drool with desire when I think of the A1, R5, or Z9, but I won't purchase one of those unless I unexpectedly inherit a lot of cash from some distant relative.

So while the fortunate folks on this forum go out with the top cameras from Nikon, Sony or Canon and they machine-gun the flying birds and fast-movers, and get a keeper rate upwards of 80% or more, I have to work that much harder to get a keeper rate of less than 50%. But man, the satisfaction of getting at least a few keepers from such an outing is for me that much more rewarding than it might have been had I been getting a sky-high keeper rate because of the mechanical abilities of a super camera/lens combo. It's easy to become used to such great capabilities in a camera and start taking them for granted. Now if Nikon can improve the subject tracking of my Z6II with firmware and provide me with a more capable lens, I would probably be relatively satisfied, even while I will still envy those who can spend the bigger bucks on the more capable gear.

Very well said, Rassie! Your experience mirrors my own - I shoot a D850, and think it's a great camera, and my "long" lens is the same as yours - a 200-500 f5.6. You're most definitely right about using that 1.4 TC on the 200-500 - quite an exercise in frustration. I too would love to have the flagship Z9, along with some of those big primes, like the 600 f4, but as an enthusiastic amateur who mostly shares his images on social media, and the occasional print for a friend or family member, the considerable expense doesn't make a lot of sense (although I certainly could spend the money - something about enjoying my daughter's inheritance.) The hard part for me is knowing that my images could be much better than they are, but for my equipment limitations. But then, I'm inspired by folks who maximize their enjoyment and manage to get great shots with the kit they have, such as a good friend who shoots with a D500 and a 200-500, and often manages to get amazing shots.

So, who else thinks that the rest of you pros should gift your big glass to Rassie and me?