« on: January 26, 2014, 10:11:56 AM »
Yes, it seems being forced into paying for features one doesn't need is the philosophy of the current consumer model.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Well... that's how most customer-business relationships work. They produce products, we buy them if they suit are needs or desires, or else we don't. I'm sure Canon thinks they have sound reasons for doing what they do, and any one person's requirements will never be met perfectly - it's not a bespoke service.
I personally welcome IS, and would happily see it in every lens if that were possible. You could look at it like film versus digital: non-IS lenses are older technology, and there's no reason a company should produce both older and newer forms. We don't expect Canon to produce new film cameras, so why non-IS versions of each lens?
I'm sure people could be found who want both, but they have to look at the bigger picture.
Don't buy the lens. Or buy the non-IS version used. That's two choices right there...
Can't you just buy the old versions? They're still widely available, either new or secondhand. They're not forcing you to pay for anything if you don't buy the products you're complaining about.
As we are all Canon folks here and can assume that we all shoot in RAW...right.
Set exposure in live view with your histogram displayed, inserting SS, ISO, f/stop, based on an "exposing to the right" technique. Then PP in any one of the myriad of RAW image processors out there, adjusting colors with a gray card that you should have used during the shoot.
Canon is updating their non-L primes to IS versions only. No choice. The user pays for IS whether or not it is required. Why?
(a) To save on design cost. (b) The old non-IS version remains available. (c) The new IS version is optically superior, has extra functionality and no weight penalty. So, why not?
So to get 'em camera makers going, here's what I want ...
QuoteRAW files are data. A hundred years from now you can easily write a small program to convert the files to whatever other format. However ...
That is what I'm asking. I personally can't write small programs 20 years from now to convert my Digital Rebel, 20D, and 6D RAW files. Are these programs actually small and so easy to write that I should have no fear and that someone will always be there to write or include those programs in their software? Do we ever get to a point where Adobe says enough already, your camera wasn't popular enough and we aren't going to support its RAW format? Or, you have had plenty of time to convert to DNG, we are are no longer supporting the Digital Rebel for example?
Understand that I'm not arguing one way or the other, I am just questioning my very own decision to keep everything RAW for now. BTW, is there a draw back to DNG? I never gave it a serious thought.
Now it looks like you're changing your definition to include primes only plus you're forgetting the TS-E 24mm f/3.5II and 28 f/1.8. If you include zooms, Canon has too many to count that cover the 24-28-35-50mm focal lengths.
And like most individuals, likely insufficient dinero and other necessary resources.
I have better things to do with my dinero. But I leave you with this ...
And when in this so common condition, one will experience much lower stress levels by accepting what one is unable to change.
There are at least a few upstarts making market share for themselves, Red and Blackmagic come to mind. They've grabbed the horns, dove right in.
.....All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident. - Arthur Scopenhauer (1788-1860)...Not sure how this is relevant to the current topic.
How does that synch with the true fact that currently marketed cameras are the very best that has ever been? They have more and better everything and incrementally continue to improve with each new release.
With sensors doing ISO12800 easily and still increasing, why do we need IS in sub-100mm lenses? Just chase up the sensitivity. Huh?
Just because you see no value in adding IS to sub-100 mm lenses does not mean others have no use for it.
As for Sony and "in-body stabilisation" ... well, maybe they didn't include it to keep the cost down.Or maybe they do not know how to do it for a 36 MP FF sensor? Also the point of making 70-200 f/4 OSS is...
…....No, I want a camera that isn't still stuck in the 1990's........
….... Pentax, just like Nikon and Canon, is still dicking around with the basic SLR design from the 1960's.....
Well, there you go then, sounds like you are volunteering, you're it. You make it, whatever it is you want.
There are 11 pretty decent EF lenses covering the 200mm focal length ...