October 01, 2014, 12:50:03 PM

Author Topic: Bye Canon?  (Read 29300 times)

learncanon

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #105 on: April 30, 2013, 11:32:38 PM »
Hey folks,
I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(

Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now i'm wondering who else?
Anyone else out there who takes the consequences of the missing features or am i the only one?



Just wondering....

People rant and rave about canon releasing rebels annually.
Now people rant and rave about xxD refresh cycle is too long.

what do you want?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #105 on: April 30, 2013, 11:32:38 PM »

Simba

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #106 on: May 01, 2013, 12:43:27 AM »
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

Studio

Fashion

Landscapes

Better on some things, not on all.

It's king in its niche.

Btw, I've put a few frames of 4x5 velvia 50 thru a friend view camera. Stunning.

There is no question that MF has physical advantage. However, if you look back and see how fast Canon or Nikon improve their dSLR cameras in just a decade, it certainly shows the huge advantage of economic of scale by big companies. I am sure the R&D budgets of Canon and Nikon are much higher than that of a niche company such as Hasselblad, but they can recoup the cost by selling millions of copies. For the previous generation of 35mm cameras such 5D II or D700, comparing 35mm to MF does not even exist. But at least there are many reviews comparing the new 35mm camera such as D800 to the low-end MF, and I am expecting more reviews when Canon high MP camera comes to the market. Think about how the market will react when the quality gap is getting closer with wide price gap a few more years down the road.
My 2 cents.

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1923
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #107 on: May 01, 2013, 01:07:31 AM »
So..........

If you use a longer focal length on FF, and shoot your scene in FF size sections, and then stitch these together so that the total stitched 'sensor' area is equal to, or greater than a MF sensor, will you achieve exactly the same result as MF ?
 ;)



ecka

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 650
  • Size matters ;)
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #108 on: May 01, 2013, 01:20:23 AM »
So..........

If you use a longer focal length on FF, and shoot your scene in FF size sections, and then stitch these together so that the total stitched 'sensor' area is equal to, or greater than a MF sensor, will you achieve exactly the same result as MF ?
 ;)

Not exactly the same result, obviously. You can't get exactly the same result with 2 different MF cameras...
Same DoF? - Yes.

EDIT:  That is when shooting from the same distance, using the same FL and aperture.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2013, 01:25:57 AM by ecka »
FF + primes !

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3466
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #109 on: May 01, 2013, 10:23:10 AM »
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

Studio

Fashion

Landscapes

Better on some things, not on all.

It's king in its niche.

Btw, I've put a few frames of 4x5 velvia 50 thru a friend view camera. Stunning.

There is no question that MF has physical advantage. However, if you look back and see how fast Canon or Nikon improve their dSLR cameras in just a decade, it certainly shows the huge advantage of economic of scale by big companies. I am sure the R&D budgets of Canon and Nikon are much higher than that of a niche company such as Hasselblad, but they can recoup the cost by selling millions of copies. For the previous generation of 35mm cameras such 5D II or D700, comparing 35mm to MF does not even exist. But at least there are many reviews comparing the new 35mm camera such as D800 to the low-end MF, and I am expecting more reviews when Canon high MP camera comes to the market. Think about how the market will react when the quality gap is getting closer with wide price gap a few more years down the road.
My 2 cents.

History has already shown MF will not be replaced by 35mm. Bigger sensor's will always have an advantage in those areas listed and their will always be that market its DESIGNED for. Don't compare the best 35mm vs a last gen MF... Compare the best to the best IE: The best 35mm cam D800 vs the Best MF cam the IQ180.

Simba

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #110 on: May 01, 2013, 11:38:33 AM »
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

Studio

Fashion

Landscapes

Better on some things, not on all.

It's king in its niche.

Btw, I've put a few frames of 4x5 velvia 50 thru a friend view camera. Stunning.

There is no question that MF has physical advantage. However, if you look back and see how fast Canon or Nikon improve their dSLR cameras in just a decade, it certainly shows the huge advantage of economic of scale by big companies. I am sure the R&D budgets of Canon and Nikon are much higher than that of a niche company such as Hasselblad, but they can recoup the cost by selling millions of copies. For the previous generation of 35mm cameras such 5D II or D700, comparing 35mm to MF does not even exist. But at least there are many reviews comparing the new 35mm camera such as D800 to the low-end MF, and I am expecting more reviews when Canon high MP camera comes to the market. Think about how the market will react when the quality gap is getting closer with wide price gap a few more years down the road.
My 2 cents.

History has already shown MF will not be replaced by 35mm. Bigger sensor's will always have an advantage in those areas listed and their will always be that market its DESIGNED for. Don't compare the best 35mm vs a last gen MF... Compare the best to the best IE: The best 35mm cam D800 vs the Best MF cam the IQ180.

No questions about this generation. I am saying the quality gap will be getting closer and price does matter. History was mostly for film, which physical size dominates the quality. Welcome to the digital world, where technologies are much easier to be improved.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #111 on: May 08, 2013, 01:34:16 AM »
The whole MF vs. 35mm format argument in this thread, went on too long.  I did not read it all, but however much I read...was more than enough...too much.  Why?  Because both sides got redundant.  Camera format first and foremost, is just a personal choice of the photographer.  People are different.  Yet fanboys in forums are very much alike...talk about children flailing their arms around!

I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.  It looks very silly.  If you put as much effort into your photography as you do in typing about your opinions about hardware, you might not care so much about typing the same things over and over.   

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #111 on: May 08, 2013, 01:34:16 AM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3466
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #112 on: May 08, 2013, 10:38:59 AM »
The whole MF vs. 35mm format argument in this thread, went on too long.  I did not read it all, but however much I read...was more than enough...too much.  Why?  Because both sides got redundant.  Camera format first and foremost, is just a personal choice of the photographer.  People are different.  Yet fanboys in forums are very much alike...talk about children flailing their arms around!

I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.  It looks very silly.  If you put as much effort into your photography as you do in typing about your opinions about hardware, you might not care so much about typing the same things over and over.   

Hmm. I never made my responses overly lengthy, just the ones who don't know what their talking about.

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1923
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #113 on: May 08, 2013, 12:39:22 PM »
Perhaps the most salient point is this:

With film, MF quality was most often noticeably higher than 35mm, and the price difference was 'x'.

With the latest digital technology the quality difference is much closer, but the price difference is 'x' times 10.

As far as FF is concerned, a good reason to bye 'Buy Canon'  ;)

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #114 on: May 09, 2013, 02:04:27 PM »
Perhaps the most salient point is this:

With film, MF quality was most often noticeably higher than 35mm, and the price difference was 'x'.

With the latest digital technology the quality difference is much closer, but the price difference is 'x' times 10.

As far as FF is concerned, a good reason to bye 'Buy Canon'  ;)

Well said!

Simba

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #115 on: May 09, 2013, 02:25:07 PM »
Perhaps the most salient point is this:

With film, MF quality was most often noticeably higher than 35mm, and the price difference was 'x'.

With the latest digital technology the quality difference is much closer, but the price difference is 'x' times 10.

As far as FF is concerned, a good reason to bye 'Buy Canon'  ;)

+1. That's my point.

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1311
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #116 on: May 09, 2013, 05:50:06 PM »
The whole MF vs. 35mm format argument in this thread, went on too long.  I did not read it all, but however much I read...was more than enough...too much.  Why?  Because both sides got redundant.  Camera format first and foremost, is just a personal choice of the photographer.  People are different.  Yet fanboys in forums are very much alike...talk about children flailing their arms around!

I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.  It looks very silly.  If you put as much effort into your photography as you do in typing about your opinions about hardware, you might not care so much about typing the same things over and over.   

Hmm. I never made my responses overly lengthy, just the ones who don't know what their talking about.
Quote
I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.
Well just because it is an argument or heated discussion, the nature of such is going to be redundancy from either or both sides, no?  Making one's point over and over again, employing different words or strategies to try to entice the other to come over from the dark side or at least to get to a point where there is a clear winner, even if it's only in one's own mind?  That being said, a myriad of examples presented in different  forms can somewhat quell the redundancy, yet only on the surface...
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400mm L, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II, EF 24-105mm L, EF 17-40mm L, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM,  Canon 580EX II, Canon 430EX II, Promaster TC 1.7x

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4731
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #117 on: May 09, 2013, 07:13:50 PM »
The whole MF vs. 35mm format argument in this thread, went on too long.  I did not read it all, but however much I read...was more than enough...too much.  Why?  Because both sides got redundant.  Camera format first and foremost, is just a personal choice of the photographer.  People are different.  Yet fanboys in forums are very much alike...talk about children flailing their arms around!

I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.  It looks very silly.  If you put as much effort into your photography as you do in typing about your opinions about hardware, you might not care so much about typing the same things over and over.   

Hmm. I never made my responses overly lengthy, just the ones who don't know what their talking about.
Quote
I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.
Well just because it is an argument or heated discussion, the nature of such is going to be redundancy from either or both sides, no?  Making one's point over and over again, employing different words or strategies to try to entice the other to come over from the dark side or at least to get to a point where there is a clear winner, even if it's only in one's own mind?  That being said, a myriad of examples presented in different  forms can somewhat quell the redundancy, yet only on the surface...

The problem is that people often debate different points. Person A will make a point. Person B will squirrel around the point made by Person A, making an argument that sounds related, but it isn't (because the debate isn't about the original argument...its about winning the argument period.) Then both parties continue to argue "their" point, and there is no way to reconcile the debate...its two people arguing apples and oranges.

RL seems to think (or acts like he thinks) the point that was made was that FF will be "better" than MF. That was never the point. The point was that FF is "closing the gap" on MF...a true and factual statement. But that isn't the point RL wants to debate...so, the argument spins around the never-ending merry-go-round...he wins the argument for his point...a point no one else is really debating, but refuses to acknowledge the original point made. People try to approach the debate for the original points from different angles (thus the redundancy, the reiteration of the same arguments in different light over and over)...but when someone refuses to even acknowledge your point...well, no amount of reiteration is really going to matter.

Medium Format vs. Full Frame...Better Gear vs. Lesser Gear...the subject is irrelevant...when the other party ignores your original points and fabricates their own....never ending merry-go-round with perpetual redundancy.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #117 on: May 09, 2013, 07:13:50 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3466
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #118 on: May 09, 2013, 07:18:37 PM »
The whole MF vs. 35mm format argument in this thread, went on too long.  I did not read it all, but however much I read...was more than enough...too much.  Why?  Because both sides got redundant.  Camera format first and foremost, is just a personal choice of the photographer.  People are different.  Yet fanboys in forums are very much alike...talk about children flailing their arms around!

I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.  It looks very silly.  If you put as much effort into your photography as you do in typing about your opinions about hardware, you might not care so much about typing the same things over and over.   

Hmm. I never made my responses overly lengthy, just the ones who don't know what their talking about.
Quote
I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.
Well just because it is an argument or heated discussion, the nature of such is going to be redundancy from either or both sides, no?  Making one's point over and over again, employing different words or strategies to try to entice the other to come over from the dark side or at least to get to a point where there is a clear winner, even if it's only in one's own mind?  That being said, a myriad of examples presented in different  forms can somewhat quell the redundancy, yet only on the surface...

The problem is that people often debate different points. Person A will make a point. Person B will squirrel around the point made by Person A, making an argument that sounds related, but it isn't (because the debate isn't about the original argument...its about winning the argument period.) Then both parties continue to argue "their" point, and there is no way to reconcile the debate...its two people arguing apples and oranges.

RL seems to think (or acts like he thinks) the point that was made was that FF will be "better" than MF. That was never the point. The point was that FF is "closing the gap" on MF...a true and factual statement. But that isn't the point RL wants to debate...so, the argument spins around the never-ending merry-go-round...he wins the argument for his point...a point no one else is really debating, but refuses to acknowledge the original point made. People try to approach the debate for the original points from different angles (thus the redundancy, the reiteration of the same arguments in different light over and over)...but when someone refuses to even acknowledge your point...well, no amount of reiteration is really going to matter.

Medium Format vs. Full Frame...Better Gear vs. Lesser Gear...the subject is irrelevant...when the other party ignores your original points and fabricates their own....never ending merry-go-round with perpetual redundancy.

My previous point made exactly.

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1276
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #119 on: May 09, 2013, 07:28:14 PM »
Hey folks,
I'been waiting so long fot the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(

Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now i'm wondering who else?
Anyone else out there who takes the consequences of the missing features or am i the only one?



Just wondering....

Not me

I did a careful look at my type of shooting (wildlife, high FPS, long glass, ...) and decided that Nikon offers a lower cost, lower quality solution.   So even though I really wanted to stick it Canon the facts told me to stay.   I might re evaluate if the 200-400 is either a dog of a lens or never appears

My $0.02

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bye Canon?
« Reply #119 on: May 09, 2013, 07:28:14 PM »