Letter to Canon

  • Thread starter Deleted member 383276
  • Start date

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,103
522
Wouldn't we all love to carry a shirt-pocket camera with a fixed lens has the same quality as a FF camera? The OP wants it all--FF and tiny lenses.
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.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,103
522
Looking beyond market conditions has been a recipe for success more than often.
Actually, it is usually a recipe for failure.

As far as I know, there were no ''markets'' for cars or hairdryers when they were introduced.
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.

I really don't want to compare some Canon lenses I would like to see with cars or hairdryers, but sometimes products create markets.
You cannot "create" a market that already exists but is captured by superior products (premium compacts and computational photography smartphones).
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,182
380
Just playing Devils Advocate here but:-
1/ Landscapers in particular (for photographers) are know to value image quality, anybody that tries to argue nothing beats sensor size when talking about image quality is being disingenuous. FF/135 format has seen the most development and has far and away the best high quality lens selections. Find me a medium format or a M4/3 distortion free 11mm rectilinear lens, for example.
2/ Nonsense, camera companies encourage interesting and high profile 'influencers' to switch all the time. I know Sony have reached out to established photographers.
3/ Most photographers can make more money teaching than selling their photos, workshops and classes are the new norm, sponsorship raises awareness and grants respectability to both parties. Image quality is not the most important thing to many many photographers, if it was there would be many more people shooting MF and far fewer people with kit lists like half ours.

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:

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,498
1,098
Irving, Texas
Dear Canon,

You continue to make great gear, but while I've been enjoying to use Canon cameras and lenses for years, there's something I do not understand:
Do we all need (and want) big fat heavy fast lenses?
Do we all need (and prefer) to shoot wide open?
What about the many landscape photographers and travellers - don't we earn the same attention, wouldn't we appreciate and enjoy small and lightweight L-primes as well as our portrait, wedding and astro photographer friends do with their big primes?

''We have first class zooms'', you may say, ''which offer many focals lenghts in one lens and maybe even less weight than with a couple of prime lenses.''
Right... but you know better than me the advantages of primes over zooms – or why does anyone make and use primes at all? Do you want to tell me that I can only choose between zooms and older EF non-L primes, if I don't want to carry bricks in my backpack?

''But then we can make these lenses not faster than f4 or even f5.6'' , you may say, and maybe you're right again.
Well... does this really matter to landscape photographers who more than often stop down to f8 anyway?
You can taylor lenses to perform best at f1.4 or so. Can't you taylor small primes for optimum performace at f11 or even f16? Ok, optimize them for f8 and give us sensor based focus stacking instead. With IBIS, we even wouldn't need in-lens IS, and the majority of landscape photographers that I know and meet use tripods anyway.

Hey Canon, you make ''Look-what-we-can-do'' lenses with incredible performance and we are really deeply impressed.
I know, physics are limiting things now and then, and I'm not an expert in this regard, but do ''Look-what-we-can-do'' lenses automatically need to be big and heavy?
Well, you're in good company with other lens makers in this regard, but show us what YOU can do by giving us a series of small L quality primes, from 12mm to 135mm or so.
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.

Last but not least, don't tell me this would be impossible. 50 years ago, men flew to the moon.

Continue to be the best, and don't forget the rest!

Very truly yours,
A Friend


1. I'm not new to photography (30 years of medium and large format behind me, Canon shooter for five years now), but I'm new to this forum.
2. English is not my native language, so forgive me some bumps here and there.
3. I'd like to know what you photographer friends out there think...
:sleep:Yawn. :sleep: 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. o_O:poop: These screeds get worse and worse.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,182
380
What he said!

Yes, I had to avoid rolling my eyes hearing yet another claim that micro 4/3 is just as good as FF for landscape, or weddings, or astro, etc, etc. It might be adequate for you, but it certainly doesn't equal the quality of FF. Or are you trying to depress the landscape photographers who invested in medium format too?
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.



And why so willing to believe Olympus would never recruit photographers who aren't already using Olympus gear?
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.
 
D

Deleted member 383276

Guest
The first hair drier was created for exclusive use in its creator's salon. The first car was tested and found practically unusable.
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 cannot "create" a market that already exists but is captured by superior products (premium compacts and computational photography smartphones).
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:

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,434
285
UK
www.flickr.com
(Almost) right.
First, I'm not complaining, I'm thinking and asking.
Second, I didn't ask for cheap or midpriced lenses. I was talking about small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality prime lenses for upcoming high resolution sensors. Of course they can't be cheap, I never expected them to be.
Third - yes, I would like full frame tiny lenses, from Canon, for Canon cameras, and I still don't feel silly (your word).
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?
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,103
522
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.
Oh, now it's "at some point". You are so desperate in moving your goalposts.

Did people call for coke before it was invented?
Are you intentionally coming up with such ridiculous examples?

Coke started as a "patent medicine" against substance dependence, despite containing cocaine.

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.
Yes and yes.

Unless you are not a photographer, but a gear fetishist. Then those would indeed be different market niches.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,379
1,726
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.
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?
 
D

Deleted member 383276

Guest
If you need tiny lenses like spies use, full frame might not be the right sensor format for you. Maybe a smartphone?
If you really want an "L" lens in some of these focal lengths, just buy yourself some red paint and masking tape.
I think that Canon needs to paint a red ring around a G9X II lens, and that will probably make you happy.
This is silly.
Despite what second-grade teachers might say, there are dumb questions!
quit with the self-centeredness you seem to think the rest of us have. o_O:poop:
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?

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.
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:

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
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.
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
There are quite a few professional landscape photographers turning to micro four-thirds
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.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,182
380
I agree with almost everything you say and nowhere have I said different.

but choosing micro four thirds for landscape in a professional capacity is like choosing a racehorse with only three legs.
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.

the wider they shoot the larger the format
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.
 

Ah-Keong

EOS 80D
Dec 1, 2016
167
10
Maybe Canon can create a P(ortable) series like the Tamron 17-35mm and Tamron 35-150mm f/2,8-f/4
 

Jethro

EOS R
Jul 14, 2018
191
84
Maybe Canon can create a P(ortable) series like the Tamron 17-35mm and Tamron 35-150mm f/2,8-f/4
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ah-Keong
Jul 12, 2011
375
8
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ah-Keong

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
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.
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.

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.
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.


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.
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:

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,182
380
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.
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.


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.
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.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,103
522
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.
Hehe. Have you ever tried to shoot 4x5" without a tripod?