Disappointed with Canon?

[macfly]

Also, awhile ago you said you were going to post a side by side comparison of the 1Ds MkIII and the D3s.  I was wondering if you had done so?

Yes, I have, I'll edit them and pop them up in the next few days. In a nutshell at 100asa they are almost equal, but as speeds rise the Nikon wins, it is almost cleaner at 5000asa than the Canon at 1600.

[Aputure]

What's not to like about the 7D?

The 5D2 has unmatched IQ at its price and resolution point.

the 550D and 60D give you 7D IQ in small, light, cheap bodies.

What more do you want?

I agree, some features could be improved, but the lineup is looking pretty strong to me. Can't wait to see what's next in for the 5D and 7D line.

Hi, I'm a long time follower of this site and I want to use it to express my disappointment to Canon about their current range of DSLRs.

I've been using exclusively Canon digital SLRs for the past ten years and have a collection of L glass to use with my 5D.  Recently I've been given some Nikon kit to play with by my college and I believe the D700 and D3s blow away anything that Canon has in the market place.  Add to that Canon's absence from the mirrorless and pellicle markets and I wonder what's going on, or not, at big red.   Getting rid of a mirror on a trapeze flapping about is a significant and logical development but Canon seems stuck in the past.

I'm not alone in my group in saying that if we don't hear of developments from Canon in new markets soon we're going to move to a combination of Nikon and Panasonic and hang the expense.  If we're forced to do that it will take massive technological innovation to persuade us to sell up again and come back to Canon.

[peejay]

I'm still shooting an original 5D professionally for some decent clients. It gets the job done. I made the move from an RZ Portra and Provia system about 6 years ago, which I thought I'd never do. When the 5d came along I bought it to play with, I was that impressed by it that I'm still using it today. It's travelled the world on jobs with me and has never let me down. Should I upgrade? maybe. For tax reasons, yes. Because it's inferior? no.

Of corse when I look at 100% crops online of various cameras I can see that I can get better technical results. Will it REALLY improve my photography though? Will it improve my ability to capture time? to perceive? to feel? No it won't.

The thing is when you find something that 'gets the job done', and very well might I add, you can get out and shoot and THAT is when your photography really improves.

Your photography will never improve if you don't get out there and shoot, and even a lowly old original 5D will help you with that.

[Policar]

I made the move from an RZ Portra and Provia system about 6 years ago, which I thought I'd never do. When the 5d came along I bought it to play with, I was that impressed by it that I'm still using it today.

How do you find the 5D as compared with the rz system?  I have an rz system I can't justify keeping, but it's hard to get rid of.  I just like the feel of it.

I just upgraded from a rebel xt to a t2i.  I wish I could say the image quality and finder are significantly better, but they're not.  Higher ISOs and live view are nice, however.

[CR Backup Admin]

I made the move from an RZ Portra and Provia system about 6 years ago, which I thought I'd never do. When the 5d came along I bought it to play with, I was that impressed by it that I'm still using it today.

How do you find the 5D as compared with the rz system?  I have an rz system I can't justify keeping, but it's hard to get rid of.  I just like the feel of it.

I just upgraded from a rebel xt to a t2i.  I wish I could say the image quality and finder are significantly better, but they're not.  Higher ISOs and live view are nice, however.

Give it more time and practice.  The higher MP sensor requires more care with such things as vibration and shutter speed to get the most out of it.  I'd double the shutter speed over what you use on the XT if you want pixel sharp images.

[peejay]

I was overwhelmingly surprised by the 5D. It revolutionized my shooting. For the past decade I was tripod bound with the RZ, which I downsized from a behemoth Fuji GX680! Yes it has it's limitations, and in some areas it can't compete with the RZ and film but really those differences are overshadowed by what shooting digitally bought to my my work.

Most of my work is editorial and printed no bigger than double page. Double page doesn't quite compete but it still looks good. Single page is marvelous. It works just fine and I've never in 6 or so years had a complaint.

I miss the result of film. But I don't miss the time it takes, the trips to the Lab, the waiting, returning bad scans, the countless hours of spotting dust...

As for sharpness, Im often adding .5 pixel gaussian blur to the 5D, so really, I don't need any more. I can understand if it is your job to accurately render reality that you'd want the sharpest possible tool, but for me that isn't a consideration. And is there really that much a difference in a real world print at 10x8, 11x14 between the sharpest and what I have? No I doubt it.

While there's a good chance I wont use the RZ again, I wouldn't sell it. That camera and I went places! So now it sits in it's case like time forgot it.

I made the move from an RZ Portra and Provia system about 6 years ago, which I thought I'd never do. When the 5d came along I bought it to play with, I was that impressed by it that I'm still using it today.

How do you find the 5D as compared with the rz system?  I have an rz system I can't justify keeping, but it's hard to get rid of.  I just like the feel of it.

I just upgraded from a rebel xt to a t2i.  I wish I could say the image quality and finder are significantly better, but they're not.  Higher ISOs and live view are nice, however.

[revup67]

The D300s colors are closer to the reality, the Canon is a little bit reddish.
Zs

Try using Custom White Balance and never rely on the camera's built in presets for AWB (especially indoor light).  Use a WhiBal card (or similar) to achieve accurate color which any decent camera should offer the option of Custom WB.  You should be shooting in RAW also vs. JPG which pre-bake's the settings and much more difficult to manipulate.  In RAW you will have full control over your entire image.  You can convert to JPG after proper tweaking in DPP if you like.  JPG's are included in each RAW image by the way.

Revup67

[CR Backup Admin]

The D300s colors are closer to the reality, the Canon is a little bit reddish.
Zs

Try using Custom White Balance and never rely on the camera's built in presets for AWB (especially indoor light).  Use a WhiBal card (or similar) to achieve accurate color which any decent camera should offer the option of Custom WB.  You should be shooting in RAW also vs. JPG which pre-bake's the settings and much more difficult to manipulate.  In RAW you will have full control over your entire image.  You can convert to JPG after proper tweaking in DPP if you like.  JPG's are included in each RAW image by the way.

Revup67

Digital sensors only detect black and white.  The color is guessed at by the jpeg in camera processor or the raw converter, and can be set to pretty much any color you want.  I am not much concerned by the color rendering of a camera, I have lightroom set to render color the way I like it as images import.

Every person perceives color differently, and has their preferences.  Thats fine and as it should be.  Thats why I don't place much stock in the gushing descriptions of how a particular lens renders better color.  Its all in the perception of the photographer.

[Policar]

I was overwhelmingly surprised by the 5D. It revolutionized my shooting. For the past decade I was tripod bound with the RZ, which I downsized from a behemoth Fuji GX680!

I was overwhelmingly surprised by the 5D. It revolutionized my shooting. For the past decade I was tripod bound with the RZ, which I downsized from a behemoth Fuji GX680!

Thanks for the feedback.  That's what I've heard from many who've made the switch.  I've always kind of secretly wanted a GX680.  I love perspective correction and waist level finders, but it's kind of a silly camera to use at this point when good t/s lenses and liveview exist for digital.  If I weren't in it for the video, I would have gone 5D over t2i any day.

I'll improve my technique with the t2i but I think it's my lenses that aren't up to the task.  You need a damned good lens to be diffraction-limited by f5.6 or f8 (after which shutter speeds and diffraction spoil resolution).  That said, I can't believe how decent the EF-S zooms are for the price.  The current kit lens is a real step up from the old ones.  It may be easy to be disappointed in Canon's high-end, but their low end offerings are competitive.

[unruled]

I hear so many people griping about AF in the 5d mkii... can anyone elaborate on that? is it the tracking that is bad? what about single shot AF?

I've had a 350d and now a 40d and I've never been dissapointed really. Even in near pitch black, the AF is fine to me. If I'm doing night landscapes it will often fail to AF -- but then again, those really are times to use manual focus anyway.

also: people who talk about nikons AF being better --- yes, they tend to have way more AF points. But for those of us who use only the center point 90% of the time... does that matter?

Also, note to those saying nikon has leapfrogged canon right now: just keep in mind, it all depends what you are talking about. For video and megapixels, canon is clearly ahead.

Not to mention, as nikon ups its megapixel count (which it will), its gonna start losing that edge in noise performance.

[CR Backup Admin]

I hear so many people griping about AF in the 5d mkii... can anyone elaborate on that? is it the tracking that is bad? what about single shot AF?

I've had a 350d and now a 40d and I've never been dissapointed really. Even in near pitch black, the AF is fine to me. If I'm doing night landscapes it will often fail to AF -- but then again, those really are times to use manual focus anyway.

also: people who talk about nikons AF being better --- yes, they tend to have way more AF points. But for those of us who use only the center point 90% of the time... does that matter?

Also, note to those saying nikon has leapfrogged canon right now: just keep in mind, it all depends what you are talking about. For video and megapixels, canon is clearly ahead.

Not to mention, as nikon ups its megapixel count (which it will), its gonna start losing that edge in noise performance.

I actually have a 5D MK II, I received in in early December 2 years ago.  I also have a 1D MK III, and bought / returned a 7D.

Every camera has its strong points and its weak points.  The 5D MK II is strong at autofocusing with the center point, and weak with the outer points.  It is particularly good at focusing in low light, and mine beats out my 1D MK III in low light AF.

Here is a example taken at a local school play where lights were out except for dim colored ones.
5D MK II, 50mm f/1.8 MK I

[revup67]

The D300s colors are closer to the reality, the Canon is a little bit reddish.
Zs

Try using Custom White Balance and never rely on the camera's built in presets for AWB (especially indoor light).  Use a WhiBal card (or similar) to achieve accurate color which any decent camera should offer the option of Custom WB.  You should be shooting in RAW also vs. JPG which pre-bake's the settings and much more difficult to manipulate.  In RAW you will have full control over your entire image.  You can convert to JPG after proper tweaking in DPP if you like.  JPG's are included in each RAW image by the way.

Revup67

Digital sensors only detect black and white.  The color is guessed at by the jpeg in camera processor or the raw converter, and can be set to pretty much any color you want.  I am not much concerned by the color rendering of a camera, I have lightroom set to render color the way I like it as images import.

Every person perceives color differently, and has their preferences.  Thats fine and as it should be.  Thats why I don't place much stock in the gushing descriptions of how a particular lens renders better color.  Its all in the perception of the photographer.

Digital sensors weren't actually part of the discussion it was the camera's photos appearing more red.  And sure, you can make the camera more green, magenta etc. however this can be time consuming and provide terrible results for other scenes you may be shooting especially if you forget to re-adjust.  Also, why go through "extra" post production in Lightroom or other s/w when you can get it accurate (or closer to accurate) the first time around with custom White Balance and a White Balance card?  If the camera is guessing as you say, why not make the guessing more accurate?  It is true "it's in the perception of the photographer" but it's also important to have a good starting point as well.