Dear fellow Canonistas!
I´ve been shooting with Canon since the 1970´s. I have invested enough in expensive glass, to keep me in the Canon loop. My only hope for every new post on Canonrumours is to read about the next jaw dropping Canon product, that can take my photography to the next level. But reading some of the posts on this forum makes me wonder what the motivation amongst some you may be. We can assume that Canon is reading what we are writing. So all the unconditional praise for what they deliver, regardless of what the competition is doing, is a confirmation that what they provide is sufficient. Well, is it??
I am in no way a potential ship jumper. I have obscene amounts of money invested in glass and bodies, that will keep me with Canon for a loooong time. But reading about the Dynamic Range figures, ISO performance and higher MP ++ from the likes of Nikon makes me sometimes wonder what Canon is doing. The 1DX and 5DIII gave me AF beyond what Nikon can deliver and I am very happy with it. But for the next pro body, Canon better provide something we can swipe the Nikon floor with. The comparisons with best selling cars compared to to the actually best cars etc. are at best entertaining.
In this forum I get the feeling that any non-pro Canon statement is similar to treason and worthy of a painful execution. In my view, a critical (when it makes sense) argument against Canon is something they should listen to. So to me, every intelligent and critical statement is welcome!
I have paid serious bucks for all my L-lenses, including 24 TS-E 3.5L II, 16-35 f2.8L II, 24-70 f2.8L II, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 85 f1.2L II, 400 f2.8L IS II, 600 f4L IS II and a few others. I believe they are the best lenses money can buy. I am also happy with my 5DIII and 1DX, given what they represent in upgrades from my previous 5DII and 1DsIII, but I sincerely hope that with the next pro body, Canon will kick Nikon ass beyond the horizon!
Have a great weekend!
(written after a great Sancerre and an even greater Brunello!)
I think you may be missing the root of where these debates come from. For the most part, they are usually originated by one particular individual: ankorwatt. I debate him not because his arguments say Nikon DR in a couple of their cameras is better. I debate him because he makes assertions that Canon does not compete because hey cannot compete, that they will never be able to compete, and Canon does not make good cameras solely because their sensors are not as good as the D800's, etc.
Those are all fundamentally flawed and false statements. On several occasions in the past, people have clearly LITERALLY jumped ship as a result of some of the things ankorwatt (and a few others, on occasion) have stated, only to find out that they did not really like the Nikon side of things. Some jumped back. All to the tune of many thousands of dollars. Someone has to debunk the often ridiculous and obviously biased statements ankorwatt makes, which are hard line anti-canon
. Just as hard line as you probably see the pro-canon stuff in response to his posts.
I do want Canon to produce better products and compete on every front...not just AF, not just high ISO, not just one thing or another. There are many discussions on this forum that follow exactly the direction you indicated...that we should be asking Canon what we want...until that one particular person posts something...then it's all down hill from there. For the most part, no one denies that Canon has worse low-ISO DR than some Nikon cameras with Sony sensors (there are a few who refuse to believe the facts, though.) But it does need to be made clear that the situations where the D800 and D600 meaningfully outpace any Canon camera is in a very specific few circumstances: ISO 100, ISO 200, and by a very slim margin ISO 400. Honestly, how many Canon shooters do you think use ISO settings ABOVE 400 vs. those who use ISO settings BELOW 400 the majority of the time?
I think far more often than not, a greater percentage of Canon shooters use ISO settings above 400....so many types of photography demand critically good high ISO performance, where as there are a select few that demand critically good ISO 100 performance. Landscapes, studio, maybe street. Beyond ISO 400 physical limitations kick in, and outside of some significant innovations like color splitting microlenses that reduce light loss reaching the sensor or multi-layered photodiodes that increase the charge holding capacity of each photodiode...there isn't much that can be done about those physical limitations. Bigger pixels are all that matter at high ISO, and currently, Canon offers some unparalleled performance in that arena.
You also have to take into account who the squeaky wheels were in a given time frame. Before the D800, the LOUDEST (by far) vocal Canon group were the "fewer megapixels, better high ISO" group. I was one of them, most of the people I knew who shot Canon were asking for fewer megapixels and higher ISO. Second to that, as the rumors about the 5D III started to fly in good quantity, the biggest complaint I remember hearing was about the 5D II AF system. As far as I can tell, Canon has delivered pretty well exactly what their customers were asking for before the new generation actually hit the streets: Fewer megapixels, better high ISO.
Its now another lull between major DSLR releases. By far, the most vocal Canon group is now the "more megapixels, better DR" group. The people who want as many megapixels as they can get their hands on, while concurrently offering more dynamic range. I did not hear much from that group before the D800 hit the streets and DXO posted their review...but now that its out, and people who do things like landscape and studio photography where detail and DR reign supreme, well, of course its the thing everyone wants. Canon delivered exactly what their customers were asking for before. I honestly don't see any reason they won't deliver, or at least try to deliver (I happily admit Exmor is some damn good technology), what their customers are asking for now.
I do think we should be vocal about it. I primarily shoot action, birds and wildlife, so high ISO is usually where I live. I also do landscapes, and I really want a high megapixel, high DR FF sensor for that. I've held off buying a new camera to see what Canon does and where they are headed, because I believe they will deliver something in line with what their customers are asking for. It's just a matter of when...and since we are in the middle of a major cycle, I don't suspect it will be for another year or so. Sadly, any time we get to pondering our wants and desires...ankorwatt usually shows up and marks his territory.
Everyone here knows the D800 has better DR. They are sick and tired of being reminded of it. Further, everyone is sick and tired of being told everything that was, is, or will be Nikon always has, is and will forever be better than Canon. Its annoying, its tiresom, its a LOAD OF CRAP, and yet...people believe that crap. So...just about every thread degrades into the same old debate..."Yes, the D800 is wonderful. No, Canon is not incapable of competing. Yes, Canon does many things better than the competition. No, Canon doesn't do everything
better than Nikon, Sony, Aptina, or whichever manufacturer is part of the topic of the day. Yes, please shut up ankorwatt, were tired of your DRoning about DRivel..." Problem is...no one can just let ankorwatts comments be...they are usually just too antagonistic, and people are people.
If one single individual was removed from the picture...things would change...radically......I don't think that is going to happen, however.