Nigel Barker switches to Sony

[groovyone]

http://www.nigelbarker.tv/blog/2009/...nds-sony-a900/

Since Chris didn't post it...

[johnastovall]

Wonder how much he is paid for the endorsement?

[Charles Putnam]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Wonder how much he is paid for the endorsement?

No! Camera companies don't give free equipment to pro photographers just to get them to switch, do they? [said tongue in cheek] If you don't know who I'm referring to, go ask Peter Reed Miller...

Wow...they got Justin Timberlake to endorse Sony. That says a lot....

[Crashoran]

A camera is a camera...most of his work highlights his use of lighting.

[janikphoto]

Originally Posted by Crashoran

A camera is a camera...most of his work highlights his use of lighting.

I could make the same exact pictures with an old Yashicamat and a dented Smith Victor hot light, right?

[Tom]

I'd switch to any brand if they paid me and provided a full line of gear.

[CFord]

I didn't post it originally cause I don't like to fuel the brand wars. What I do think it proves when pros are willing to endorse a brand (any brand). Is that it isn't the camera but the photographer that makes the end result of his work. The camera is just a tool and since the tools he was offered allow him to produce "his" work he is willing to switch and endorse. I doubt we would see the same switch if he was a pro sports shooter though, Sony just isn't there yet with their current line up.

[Tom]

What I do think it proves when pros are willing to endorse a brand (any brand).

I don't think that is a big deal. He is getting paid to endorse this, just like great photographers Justin Timberlake and Peyton Manning.

[CFord]

Justin Timberlake and Peyton Manning don't make a career as a photographer so a camera isn't a tool of their trade. If you read the blog he isn't just endorsing them he is using them. Makes a bit of a difference.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by CFord

Justin Timberlake and Peyton Manning don't make a career as a photographer so a camera isn't a tool of their trade. If you read the blog he isn't just endorsing them he is using them. Makes a bit of a difference.

From his blog:

Some of you might be aware that I am endorsing Sony alongside Justin Timberlake and Peyton Manning in an upcoming ad campaign launching in October. And although in endorsement deals you get paid to say things the fact of the matter is the new SONY A900 DSLR is the best digital SLR camera I have ever shot with for a number of reasons.

It sounds to me as though he is getting paid for this.

You cannot endorse something you do not use.

[CFord]

I never said he wasn't. I said he is using the equipment in his daily job.

I actually replaced all my DSLRs and lenses for a full Sony kit.

Would switch from your current lineup of gear to one that couldn't do the job you need it to do and that means you lose credibility in your line of work even if they gave you the new gear for free?

[mschulz]

Originally Posted by CFord

I never said he wasn't. I said he is using the equipment in his daily job.



Would switch from your current lineup of gear to one that couldn't do the job you need it to do and that means you lose credibility in your line of work even if they gave you the new gear for free?

Nigel mostly shoots the RZ67 with digital backs or film so his main work horse isn't even in that format range of either Sony, Nikon or Canon.

Can somebody say Kool-Aid?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mschulz

Nigel mostly shoots the RZ67 with digital backs or film so his main work horse isn't even in that format range of either Sony, Nikon or Canon.

Can somebody say Kool-Aid?

Bingo.

Would switch from your current lineup of gear to one that couldn't do the job you need it to do and that means you lose credibility in your line of work even if they gave you the new gear for free?

He shoots portraits. You could get great studio stuff from any of the major DSLR brands.

The majority of stuff he produces will be MF anyway, so the Sony stuff is just a little extra money on the side.

[CFord]

Thus the reason I didn't bother to post it to begin with. Yall go back to your rhetoric of the only camera worth shooting is the one you own and we can all move on down the road.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by CFord

Thus the reason I didn't bother to post it to begin with. Yall go back to your rhetoric of the only camera worth shooting is the one you own and we can all move on down the road.

No one has said that.

But you seem to be taking WAY too much out of the fact that someone is getting PAID to shoot with something. If Pentax or Olympus paid more, he would go with them.

And for his big assignments, he would still shoot with MF, because it doesn't compete.

It seems like you are the one that needs to adjust your rhetoric. Not very professional to make things up and pretend other people said it.