December 22, 2014, 11:10:13 PM

Author Topic: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.  (Read 20082 times)

barryjphoto

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #90 on: February 09, 2012, 05:29:00 PM »
I can't wait to see all the Craigslist and Ebay EF lenses after the impatient users jump to Nikon.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #90 on: February 09, 2012, 05:29:00 PM »

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #91 on: February 09, 2012, 05:29:45 PM »

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. .

I am a known non IS person in that I prefer to keep the shutter speed up with iso increases.

However I dont think that it is a gimmic on the 24-105. I find that 1/60 is about the minimum for non motion blur for slow moving humans. Without IS this leads to a problem when at the 100 end of the lens and 1/60 is all I am going to get without impacting IQ.

I would perhaps agree if you said about no need for IS on lens 50mm or over - but on the 24-105 IS is not a gimic

I agree... there are times IS works, other times it wont... I can buy you a few stops hand holding but wont stop motion blur, and others, like shooting on an airplane or helicopter, no amount of IS will help and shutter speeds need to take over.

I understand that - especially on the 400 f/2.8 which I was taking at 1/60 (on a gimbal)

Here is an example where IS has assisted 70-200II on a 1.3 @155mm taken at 1/125

Camera Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Focal Length: 155.0mm
Aperture: f/2.8
Exposure Time: 0.0080 s (1/125)
ISO equiv: 400


lensla

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #92 on: February 09, 2012, 05:34:06 PM »

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. .

I am a known non IS person in that I prefer to keep the shutter speed up with iso increases.

However I dont think that it is a gimmic on the 24-105. I find that 1/60 is about the minimum for non motion blur for slow moving humans. Without IS this leads to a problem when at the 100 end of the lens and 1/60 is all I am going to get without impacting IQ.

I would perhaps agree if you said about no need for IS on lens 50mm or over - but on the 24-105 IS is not a gimic

I agree... there are times IS works, other times it wont... I can buy you a few stops hand holding but wont stop motion blur, and others, like shooting on an airplane or helicopter, no amount of IS will help and shutter speeds need to take over.

Sorry.  I didn't mean for it to sound like it's a gimmick overall.  The 105 end of the 24-105 makes the IS useful.  Actually in the 80+ range it becomes useful.  And the 24-105 is an f/4 making it even more useful than on a 2.8.  It'd be a gimmick on the 24-70 2.8. 

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4578
    • View Profile
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #93 on: February 09, 2012, 05:38:25 PM »
I've been lurking these forums for months.  But I registered just now to tell the OP that he sounds ridiculous.
Seriously.  I'm a former Nikon shooter (that still prefers a number of things about Nikons) and you
sound like an impatient, petulant child.

First of all, there isn't a professional on this planet that actually thinks the 24-70 needs IS. In fact,
it's easy to sort out the professionals from amateurs based solely on how they feel about there being
no IS on the 24-70.  It's a simple test actually.  Do you think that the new lens is overpriced because
it has no IS?  Congratulations, you're an amateur/hobbyist photographer.  Nothing wrong with that, let's
just not confuse terms here.     

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price.  A 24-70 focal range lens, especially on a full frame where most
pros will use it, renders IS almost completely useless.  Just about every situation (very few)  in which IS would
be useful can be covered using proper technique and/or a 100 dollar monopod.  Longer focal lengths, sure, IS
makes sense, and is quite useful. But you cannot look at the MTF chart of the newest 24-70, which looks like it
might even blow away some primes in its focal range, and go "oh that's overpriced".  It shows your ignorance.
It's a professional lens. A professional tool.  The added durability and sealing alone make it worth it for a pro,
they make it back with one or two photo shoots.   

And come on.  Complaining about Canon not having an answer for the D800? It's been out for like
72 hours.  Really?  I mean, really?  Now you're going to whine like the kid who's upset that the
neighbor boy got a new hot wheels toy and you have to wait 'til Christmas?  Come on.  Ridiculous. 
Settle down.  Obviously Canon is releasing something soon.  Wait to see what the specs are.
And stop worrying about unimportant things like IS on a wide angle, and huge megapixels on a 35mm.

normally I would Ignore a post like this but I'll bite this time, firstly for the most part I agree, MOST Proffessional photographers would not need IS in that focal range for most things they shoot, at a wedding agreed IS dont need it shooting a performance in low light dont need it. However I shoot alot of stuff in operating mine and processing plant enviroments. Now since I dont expect you to have ever shot in this environment but there is a hell of a lot of constant vibration and noise. in so much as you cannot brace yourself against any structure to get better stabilityl because it makes it worse due to the structure vibrating. The Only way is to set a wide stable stance with a slight bend in the knees to soak up some vibrateion tuck you grip of the camera in close to your chest, and to use IS to take the rest of the vibration out. I use the 24-105 f4L IS solely for these shoots I would LOVE to be able to shoot at f2.8 because the environement can often have low, bad or seriously contrasty light granted its a very specific type of shooting condition but one where the only solution to the problem is IS.
So I would suggest that since you are new perhaps you should take the arrogant tone down a little and behave more like the professional you are :)
And i wasnt being sarcastic I really think that you made the statement because you have never had to shoot in an environment in that focal range where IS is critical and I hope that explanation of a specific shooting condition where IS is critical makes the point that IS is usefull.
as I have said before my dream lens is a 24-105 f2.8L IS but I would have settled for a 24-70 f2.8L IS
I may still get the 24-70 mk2 for wedding use if it lives up to the hype but for that other stuff the trusty old 24-105 is gonna keep its job, plus I dont feel so bad when the relatively cheap 24-105 gets covered in mud and all sorts of stuff
APS-H Fanboy

Orion

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #94 on: February 09, 2012, 05:46:06 PM »
. . . as far as IS goes, it is almost worthless on a 24-70. Either just by depth of field alone or the fact that if you are shgooting 1/125 +-, you don't need IS. It is of no consequence. For the amount of professional grade glass and coatings on the new 24-70 (and from 77 to 82), for what it's capable of, the price is not a total surprise too. That is why they may come out with IS on a 24/28mm lense so as to satisfy many. . . but to add IS on an alreaday 2200+ lens seems a professional waste of time and high price.

Imagine what you can do with the 24-70mkII on a 1Dx . . . or a new 5DmkIII. THAT'S where the thoughts should go :)

lensla

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #95 on: February 09, 2012, 05:49:40 PM »
I've been lurking these forums for months.  But I registered just now to tell the OP that he sounds ridiculous.
Seriously.  I'm a former Nikon shooter (that still prefers a number of things about Nikons) and you
sound like an impatient, petulant child.

First of all, there isn't a professional on this planet that actually thinks the 24-70 needs IS. In fact,
it's easy to sort out the professionals from amateurs based solely on how they feel about there being
no IS on the 24-70.  It's a simple test actually.  Do you think that the new lens is overpriced because
it has no IS?  Congratulations, you're an amateur/hobbyist photographer.  Nothing wrong with that, let's
just not confuse terms here.     

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price.  A 24-70 focal range lens, especially on a full frame where most
pros will use it, renders IS almost completely useless.  Just about every situation (very few)  in which IS would
be useful can be covered using proper technique and/or a 100 dollar monopod.  Longer focal lengths, sure, IS
makes sense, and is quite useful. But you cannot look at the MTF chart of the newest 24-70, which looks like it
might even blow away some primes in its focal range, and go "oh that's overpriced".  It shows your ignorance.
It's a professional lens. A professional tool.  The added durability and sealing alone make it worth it for a pro,
they make it back with one or two photo shoots.   

And come on.  Complaining about Canon not having an answer for the D800? It's been out for like
72 hours.  Really?  I mean, really?  Now you're going to whine like the kid who's upset that the
neighbor boy got a new hot wheels toy and you have to wait 'til Christmas?  Come on.  Ridiculous. 
Settle down.  Obviously Canon is releasing something soon.  Wait to see what the specs are.
And stop worrying about unimportant things like IS on a wide angle, and huge megapixels on a 35mm.

normally I would Ignore a post like this but I'll bite this time, firstly for the most part I agree, MOST Proffessional photographers would not need IS in that focal range for most things they shoot, at a wedding agreed IS dont need it shooting a performance in low light dont need it. However I shoot alot of stuff in operating mine and processing plant enviroments. Now since I dont expect you to have ever shot in this environment but there is a hell of a lot of constant vibration and noise. in so much as you cannot brace yourself against any structure to get better stabilityl because it makes it worse due to the structure vibrating. The Only way is to set a wide stable stance with a slight bend in the knees to soak up some vibrateion tuck you grip of the camera in close to your chest, and to use IS to take the rest of the vibration out. I use the 24-105 f4L IS solely for these shoots I would LOVE to be able to shoot at f2.8 because the environement can often have low, bad or seriously contrasty light granted its a very specific type of shooting condition but one where the only solution to the problem is IS.
So I would suggest that since you are new perhaps you should take the arrogant tone down a little and behave more like the professional you are :)
And i wasnt being sarcastic I really think that you made the statement because you have never had to shoot in an environment in that focal range where IS is critical and I hope that explanation of a specific shooting condition where IS is critical makes the point that IS is usefull.
as I have said before my dream lens is a 24-105 f2.8L IS but I would have settled for a 24-70 f2.8L IS
I may still get the 24-70 mk2 for wedding use if it lives up to the hype but for that other stuff the trusty old 24-105 is gonna keep its job, plus I dont feel so bad when the relatively cheap 24-105 gets covered in mud and all sorts of stuff

No, you make a fantastic point.  Canon should invest millions of dollars into engineering a lens for the 15 people that shoot under those conditions. 

I will say this though, that post was more about frustration than arrogance.  The whole backlash against Canon over this lens and no 5D3 (currently) is quite widespread, and based completely in ignorance.  Seeing
it over and over again everywhere... and now an entire thread devoted to this stupidity, it's like road rage.
So, if it came off as arrogance, I apologize, only for that.  The tone was of frustration, but it does not change
the content of my posting, which is based completely in logic. 
 
« Last Edit: February 09, 2012, 05:54:57 PM by lensla »

thepancakeman

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 457
  • If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving
    • View Profile
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #96 on: February 09, 2012, 05:59:58 PM »
No, you make a fantastic point.  Canon should invest millions of dollars into engineering a lens for the 15 people that shoot under those conditions. 

I will say this though, that post was more about frustration than arrogance.  The whole backlash against Canon over this lens and no 5D3 (currently) is quite widespread, and based completely in ignorance.  Seeing
it over and over again everywhere... and now an entire thread devoted to this stupidity, it's like road rage.
So, if it came off as arrogance, I apologize, only for that.  The tone was of frustration, but it does not change
the content of my posting, which is based completely in logic. 
 

And being "based completely in logic" isn't arrogant?  Your logic is complete and infallible?  I want to be just like you when I get to be 15 too!   :-X

Sorry to the rest of you--I seem to have a small/non-existant tolerance today for people who know everything (except of course for Neuro, who actually DOES know everything!   ;D )

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #96 on: February 09, 2012, 05:59:58 PM »

corntrollio

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #97 on: February 09, 2012, 06:02:43 PM »
love the fact it can crop to 1.5X. Something I would love in a Canon

but i do like the 1.2x crop feature the d800 has..

Why is that a useful feature? So you can buy DX lenses to use on your full frame? I don't understand why it'd be useful to do this in camera vs. in post.

Generally speaking, I don't understand why you'd want to crop that much if you're composing right. For wildlife in some cases? Or maybe if you use wide angle lenses in street photography because you feel less sketchy being "stealth," although I see that as more sketchy.

In any case, it doesn't appear to be a reason to prefer a D800. Just crop like you do now.

AvTvM

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1187
    • View Profile
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #98 on: February 09, 2012, 06:24:48 PM »
I honestly believe, every single new lens - aside from maybe fisheyes -  from a camera manufacturer like Canon (or Nikon)  that does not offer in-body stabilization should come out with IS.  Even if some or many users may or will never use IS, there are way more situations in which it is useful.

There is not a single rational argument against IS:
* IS adds hardly any weight - e.g. the EF  70-200/4 L with IS is exactly 55grams heavier than the non-IS version
* IS does not add size -  e.g. the EF 70-200/4 L IS has exactly the same dimensions as the non-L variant
* IS does not make a lens less sharp or otherwise optically inferior ... e.,g. the EF 70-200 4 L IS is sharper than the non-IS variant
* IS is dirt cheap ... I bet it costs Canon less than 50 $/€  on a non-supertele lens like e.g. the 24-70

I find the 24-70 II at a price tag of € 2299 just ludicrous without IS. ALso, the MTF is worth rather little, as Canon publishes "theoretical/calculated" MTFs ... as opposed to Zeiss who publish "real/measured" MTFs. Furthermore, a major improvement over the rather mediocre 24-70 Mk I was and is absolutely necessary ... so the Mk. II better be really good. 

I am however, not going to switch to Nikon (yet), because I am a fairly happy APS-C hobbyist (7D) and love my 17-55 with IS ... which by the way is optically better than the 24-70 L Mk I over the entire overlapping focal range ... "despite" having IS! Nikon has (still) no 17-55 with IS - and that was one of the main reasons I did not switch from my earlier 40D to Nikons D300 but waited for the 7D.

If Nikon brings out a D400 which bests the 7D by the same margin the D800 bests the 5D II ... I will reconsider again.

And, take this Canon fanboys: should I ever switch to FF, I will definitely consider the Tamron 24-70 with VC and USM at probably less than half of the price of a Canon 24-70 without IS - no matter whether my future FF camera will be made by Canon or Nikon.

 

M.R.Rafsanjani

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #99 on: February 09, 2012, 06:39:23 PM »
Its all about the marketing strategies I think. Not to worry.

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #100 on: February 10, 2012, 01:50:30 AM »

* IS does not make a lens less sharp or otherwise optically inferior ... e.,g. the EF 70-200 4 L IS is sharper than the non-IS variant
* IS is dirt cheap ... I bet it costs Canon less than 50 $/€  on a non-supertele lens like e.g. the 24-70

I find the 24-70 II at a price tag of € 2299 just ludicrous without IS.


Lets deal with this point at a time:

* IS does not make a lens less sharp or otherwise optically inferior

An IS lens is a different design from a non IS. It is not just a question of slapping on a gizmo. Precedent of the 70-200 f/2.8 meant that the non IS version was market leading when introduced. The IS version had significantly worse IQ.

* IS is dirt cheap

Manufacturing cost may be low - but R&D is very high per unit sold. It is a brand new lens design.

* I find the 24-70 II at a price tag of € 2299 just ludicrous without IS

The price tag is Canon's top dollar price, street price will be significantly lower

This lens in a pro lens - if the quality is at the level indicated in the published MTF charts then there will be a move away from prime lens to this zoom. This has already happened with the 70-200 f/2.8II (which I believe will be about the same street price as the 24-70II)

In the pro world $2000 does not make it an expensive lens. Look at a sports event at the large whites which are probably well over $5000 each.

IS is not such an issue for the majority of the intended market for this lens. If they get 95% of market penetration then that will be a sucess for them.

I suggest we wait for the reviews to come through before we judge and come to any conclusions. History is littered with prejudgements that have proved unfounded in the harsh light of day

SF DTM

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #101 on: February 10, 2012, 03:13:36 PM »
On Tuesday I seriously went through the whole "switching to Nikon" conversation with a couple buddies. The D4 looks sexy as hell but I have a 1DX Pre-Ordered and after 3 days of going back and forth i'm giving Canon the benefit of the doubt and going to give them some time to explain what's been going on.

They haven't dropped the ball yet but not keeping in touch with their customers is just frustrating as hell. Nikon is constantly giving their customers info and every time they announce a new camera - the pre-orders are ready to be taken and everything is good. I feel like Canon always just rushes their announcements just to shut people up.

Now just waiting for high res ISO samples >_<

kennykodak

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
  • M.Photog.MEI.Cr.
    • View Profile
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #102 on: February 10, 2012, 03:25:12 PM »
On Tuesday I seriously went through the whole "switching to Nikon" conversation with a couple buddies. The D4 looks sexy as hell but I have a 1DX Pre-Ordered and after 3 days of going back and forth i'm giving Canon the benefit of the doubt and going to give them some time to explain what's been going on.

They haven't dropped the ball yet but not keeping in touch with their customers is just frustrating as hell. Nikon is constantly giving their customers info and every time they announce a new camera - the pre-orders are ready to be taken and everything is good. I feel like Canon always just rushes their announcements just to shut people up.

likewise i have a 1DX on pre-order and the camera shop crunching the numbers to switch to Nikon.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #102 on: February 10, 2012, 03:25:12 PM »

EYEONE

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #103 on: February 10, 2012, 03:58:51 PM »
On Tuesday I seriously went through the whole "switching to Nikon" conversation with a couple buddies. The D4 looks sexy as hell but I have a 1DX Pre-Ordered and after 3 days of going back and forth i'm giving Canon the benefit of the doubt and going to give them some time to explain what's been going on.

They haven't dropped the ball yet but not keeping in touch with their customers is just frustrating as hell. Nikon is constantly giving their customers info and every time they announce a new camera - the pre-orders are ready to be taken and everything is good. I feel like Canon always just rushes their announcements just to shut people up.

Now just waiting for high res ISO samples >_<

Explain to me why the D4 is more appealing than the 1Dx. Other than the fact that it's "sexy as hell" and will be out 30 days before the 1Dx. I'm just curious.
Canon 5D Mark III w/BG-E11, Canon 7D w/BG-E7: EF 24-70mm f.2.8L, EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, EF 40mm f2.8 Pancake STM, Speedlite 430EXII + 430EXI, Canon EOS 3

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #104 on: February 10, 2012, 04:25:40 PM »
I cant believe that people are getting ready to jump ship when neither body has had a full review and neither is shipping.

OK - talk through this scenario then:

One buys the D4 and loses a whole bunch of money on the lens etc

A month later the 1DX is reviewed and shown to be hands down better than the D4

What would you do next?

    - go back to Canon and lose more money?
    - suffer an inferior product for the next 2 or 3 years until the replacements are announced?


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« Reply #104 on: February 10, 2012, 04:25:40 PM »