Olympus Stylus Epic had quite a good lens for a 135 format camera of its time.
Now, though, we have better quality lenses in some smartphones.
Upvote
0
Now, though, we have better quality lenses in some smartphones.
Actually, it is usually a recipe for failure.
Neither the first car nor the first hair dryer were successful market products. The first hair drier was created for exclusive use in its creator's salon. The first car was tested and found practically unusable.
You cannot "create" a market that already exists but is captured by superior products (premium compacts and computational photography smartphones).
Upvote
0
1 - I agree with your points, but the unspoken question behind my point was not 'what is best' but 'what is good enough'. If MFT gives images 'good enough' with additional portability then why tell them they should be using FF? If image sales are unaffected by using MFT, then why care? I often find in these gear discussions that the gear user places far more concern on adpects of quality than other viewers care about.
2 - I agree. But, linked to the third point, a pro will only switch after trying the gear and assessing if it affects his sales or his credibility.
3 - I agree. But they will only win sales of their courses if they produce images that people think are good enough quality.
I will also repeat what I have said many times before: if someone wants to use a certain system because it meets their personal critiera, even if those critiera produce differences indiscernible to anyone else that is their choice. I was railing more against snobbish attitude that the only reason a pro would use MFT is because they are paid to do so.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yawn. Canon Makes lenses for most any need. If Canon doesn't provide for your needs, buy something else. Canon obviously doesn't make fast glass to satisfy the needs of all, just like TS-E lenses are not made for all. Canon does make lenses to satisfy most any genre. I suggest you look through the catalogue. Buy what suits your niche and quit with the self-centeredness you seem to think the rest of us have. These screeds get worse and worse.
Upvote
0
What a dumb comment. This is not about what is the best, but what is 'good enough' and each user has their limit on what is 'good enough' yet you seem unable to accept that a professional would find MFT 'good enough'.
I was replying to an idea that MFT is not 'good enough' for no other reason that it had a smaller sensor.
Where did I say anything approaching that? I was saying why would a professional agree to switch if it gave substandard (by their standard) images in return for free gear. If they agree to switch it will only be because, after a trial term, they found the image quality did not compromise their livelihood.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 383276
Guest
You're all so smart. Come on, at some point these and other things were introduced and they created a ''need" which didn't exist before. Did people call for coke before it was invented?
You tell me that the market for small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality FF prime lenses for upcoming high resolution sensors from Canon is already captured by premium compacts and smartphones.
Interesting. As a FF shooter, I must have missed something.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Portraying yourself as perfectly reasonable and neutral ('I'm not complaining...') whilst describing responses as 'hate' (a word used by someone else but whose comment you appeared to agree with) or 'scorn' is not a good way to foster polite discussion on any forum.
Fwiw I think a lot of the problematic nature of your original post lies in these lines: "Make them small, make them light, make them L, make them perfect. I think you will make more money, because you will have more custumers: those who don't want to carry or who can't afford the heavy beasts."
You're coupling what sounds to be an unreasonable request with the contention that it would be a good business move. I don't think that circle can be squared. Something has to give.
We come back to the same broad response to most complaints/requests on this site: if Canon doesn't make it, they're either planning to do so, or more likely they've looked at the market and decided it's not worth it. Loads of people think they know better, but so what?
Upvote
0
Oh, now it's "at some point". You are so desperate in moving your goalposts.
Are you intentionally coming up with such ridiculous examples?
Coke started as a "patent medicine" against substance dependence, despite containing cocaine.
Yes and yes.
Unless you are not a photographer, but a gear fetishist. Then those would indeed be different market niches.
Upvote
0
It seems reasonable that some people would want, "Small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality FF prime lenses." But I think more people who can afford 'Luxury' want something special for their money. Historically L-series prime lenses have had fast apertures (relative to their focal length). Fast apertures mean bigger and heavier lenses. If they're not fast, they are unique in other ways (TS-E, 100L Macro IS).
What you're asking for is L primes where the main 'luxury' feature is image quality. Even there, high IQ generally means more corrections needed, meaning more lens elements, meaning bigger and heavier.
What you're suggesting is that there's a market for slow L-seires prime lenses, e.g. 50/1.8L, 85/1.8L, 200/4L, etc. What others are saying is that Canon has been making lenses for a long time, and they haven't made such lenses. In other words, you're claiming you understand the lens market better than Canon.
Over the past 30 years, Canon has sold >130,000,000 lenses...an average of 8.24 lenses per minute...but you know the market better than they do. And you wonder why you're getting push-back?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 383276
Guest
quit with the self-centeredness you seem to think the rest of us have.
Agreed. That's not a good way to foster polite discussions in any forum.
Dear friends, I came here with some thoughts, which turned into ideas, questions and wishes. For no specific reason, just because I liked it, I choose to write my post as a "letter".
I wanted to start a lively discussion about these thoughts, ideas and wishes, and I'm happy with many replies. Admittedly not so much with some replies cited above.
Just to make a few things clear, whatever you might believe: I didn't notice or feel hate here, nor did I agree with someone else who used this word (although I noticed he/she also felt some irritation). As I previously said, I'm wondering about the (sarcastic) mood in some replies, because neither did I attack Canon (who wouldn't need volunteer defenders anyway) nor did I offend anyone of you in any way, to my best knowledge. I said that hate and scorn (again, someone else used this word) are not so far apart, and I affirm this point of view, which is completely my own way to see and describe it.
I need help to understand what's wrong with that.
Canon make many lenses for many needs, I know that.
Feel free to think one step further: I wrote my ''letter" because I know the Canon camera and lens lines very well.
I'm perfectly happy for all of you who are happy with the existing Canon lens line. Did I disredard any rule here by not being fully in line?
No, I don't know the market better than Canon, where exactly did I claim that? ''In other words...'' is your conclusion, not mine.
Yes, I think there's a market for such lenses, but this is what I think. Ridiculous examples or not, I stand by my view that new products can create a need which didn't exist before. Canon do their research and make what they think people would need, and they've been successful with that. Without knowing better, I feel free to think of different lenses and free to think they could make money with it. Why this is a reason to get push-back is beyond me.
I'd find those lenses to be a fine addition, and if the majority of you disagree, absolutely FINE with me!
I leave it to you, if push-back - for nothing but thoughts, ideas and wishes, reasonable or not, niche or not - is fine with you.
''If anyone does not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave.''
Paco (Esperanto word for peace)
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
This is something that I never understand. Someone starts a thread saying they want to get other people’s views. But it turns out they don’t really want to hear from anyone who disagrees. But how can you have a discussion if everyone just says “what a great idea!,” especially if it’s not a particularly good idea in the first place.
Upvote
0
But there are only a few professional landscape photographers to start with !
I know some of those professional landscape togs and some full time amateur, the formats range from FF to LF, with FF being the small, 'go anywhere' format. In my experience the more reach a photographer requires the smaller the format they are prepared to use....the wider they shoot the larger the format.
I wanted to like Olympus and it's micro four thirds, but I found it just can't take the same degree of enlargement as even aps-c to be honest. Not that an engaging landscape picture comes down to resolution and tonal gradient, but choosing micro four thirds for landscape in a professional capacity is like choosing a racehorse with only three legs.
Upvote
0
I agree with almost everything you say and nowhere have I said different.
The part that too many people forget in these discussions is whether that 'fourth leg' is something you find important to your style of photography, and if not 'important' whether MFT offers better compromises and all of that is, of course, personal preference. Isn't all this rather remenisicent of how MF pros used to look down on 35mm when it first came out? When does portability of kit override and advantages of the technology override ultimate image quality? Some people think it is there already. All I was saying was the poster should not dismiss MFT based on nothing more than it being a smaller sensor.
Why is that?
Panasonic has the excellent 8-18 and Olympus the 7-14 (14mm or 16mm on FF) - how many photographers shoot wider than 16mm (the excellent Panasonic 8-18 on MFT has the same FOV). And once you get to panorama switching it all becomes moot.
The part that too many people forget in these discussions is whether that 'fourth leg' is something you find important to your style of photography, and if not 'important' whether MFT offers better compromises and all of that is, of course, personal preference. Isn't all this rather remenisicent of how MF pros used to look down on 35mm when it first came out? When does portability of kit override and advantages of the technology override ultimate image quality? Some people think it is there already. All I was saying was the poster should not dismiss MFT based on nothing more than it being a smaller sensor.
Why is that?
Panasonic has the excellent 8-18 and Olympus the 7-14 (14mm or 16mm on FF) - how many photographers shoot wider than 16mm (the excellent Panasonic 8-18 on MFT has the same FOV). And once you get to panorama switching it all becomes moot.
Upvote
0
I'm sure they could create such a series, but their efforts are now focused on the RF series, and will be for some time. The answer to most of these questions would be in M series lenses anyway: the quality (and size and weight) are fine for most non-specialist uses if you ignore the lack of an 'L' moniker.
Upvote
0
Like it or not, we get what Canon gives us. I'll give them credit for understanding their capabilities and matching them to the marketplace. They didn't get to be number one by being stupid or unresponsive. There are other choices, with advantages and risks associated, but for the most part "what you get it what you see." Ever consider needlepoint?
Upvote
0
I agree with this and as I said, technical quality alone doesn't make for a compelling image. However your comment was in the context of a professional photographer and so it's not so much what is important to "you", but the audience that you are selling to.
Well MF film pros were quite right to look down on 35mm film if what they were shooting could be shot on MF. Indeed LF (5x4") users looked down on MF if the subject being shot allowed the use of a 5x4 camera ! Serious landscape photography in those days was really done on 5 4, but those were the days when a really excellent landscape shot was something valuable. Now the digital world is awash with amazing landscape images.
A 5 4 image was in a different league to 35mm, and you are quite right in that modern digital technology has completely changes all this, and I agree that there is nothing like the same difference between digital MF and MFT as there was in the different film formats. But likewise there is not the same differences in portability now either. When comparing a 5 4 film camera to 35mm, and then digital MF to MFT there is nothing like the same differences in portability or perhaps more significantly, shoot ability. From a personal point of view I agree entirely that bogging yourself down with heavy gear is likely to result in poorer images, but to day we have total unrestricted portability without losing anything in quality with digital FF, even more so with the likes of the Canon R et al.
I guess it's because of resolution and definition. When shooting wide the detail in the picture tends to be small, and so if the capture size is large it's easier to define the detail. Panorama stitching changes this, especially if shooting multiple vertical frames because the focal length that you are using to get the vertical field of view will be much longer than if shooting the same in one frame, and so the image is magnified more and the capture size is bigger. Even though I now use exclusively 5DSs I still prefer the wide images that I get from stitching a 'normal' focal length to those images where I have used an ultra wide.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I agree. But we are keen photographers with an eye to getting the maximally pliable image. Most clients do not care about the technicalities and it comes down to 'do I like the image'. We get carried away with gear and technicalities to an extent that passes the client by. Even on paid contracts.
Quite a few professionals will disagree. E-M1 mkii with 7-14 f2.8 versus a 5D4 with 16-35 f2.8. Or even EOS-R with 16-35 f4. Then add a couple more lenses (such as a 60mm macro and wide primes and even a standard zoom) plus the filters and spare batteries and other paraphernalia then lug it all for 6hours cross-country.
I agree that it seems other mirrorless marques are narrowing the gap but the gap is there - and when it narrows more I suspect that those shifting to MFT may switch back and get the best of both worlds but we aren't there quite yet.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
