Childish Behaviour

[awinphoto]

What people want is to have that perfect camera that will fit their needs and if they dont get that, then it's a HUGE disappointment and they have to let the world know about it. In the end, canon has their feelers out in the market talking to the people they know they are selling their products to (not our target perceived audiences, but their target audiences) and gearing their stuff to suit those people because they know that those people will buy their gear. So it is what it is...

 

[K-amps]

My friend shoots rock gigs with a Nikon D300s and Sigma Lenses, He even does video on it at 720p.

He is not interested in the D800 at all, or full frame. He currently has had Magazine covers done at 12 megapixel and A2 and A3 prints done professionally so this I must have 36megapixel 75 meg files is insane.

Just shooting raw on my 7D takes up loads of space and you are right once someone gets this camera and quickly realises that their nice shine laptop/mac cannot handle the raw files with out pausing/stuttering and filling up their hard disks in no time at all.

Saying that I still would like a 5D3 whenever it appears. hopefully same resolution as the current 5dmk II.

Doc.. agree with you. File sizes add up in performance and sluggishness too.

Since you have both the 7D and the 5D, which IQ do you prefer for portraits/architecture/landscapes?

 

[K-amps]

The childish/silliness is continuing on POTN. Someone is asking whether IS will be available on the Mk III version of the 24-70mm. Unbelieveable!!

What is so unbelievable about it?

Most people are pissed that Canon made the 24-70L MK II without IS, while "lowly" Tamron releases their new 24-70 WITH IS.

I have never been interested in the 24-70L II or it's predecessor, but I do understand the frustration among people who were looking forward to the MK II (with IS).

There is a sizeable chunk of people (many not even on CR.. yes there are Canon fans outside of CR ) that were torn between the 24-105 F4 with IS or the 24-70 f2.8 no IS, should they go with a faster lens but no IS or slower lens with IS that was cheaper/ sharper. So many of them waited... and when the replacement for the 24-70 was announced without IS, I am sure many of them felt let down. I can understand their frustration.... they have no worthy partner for their 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii ... Let them grieve and vent. They are our fellow Canoners.

 

[awinphoto]

The childish/silliness is continuing on POTN. Someone is asking whether IS will be available on the Mk III version of the 24-70mm. Unbelieveable!!

What is so unbelievable about it?

Most people are pissed that Canon made the 24-70L MK II without IS, while "lowly" Tamron releases their new 24-70 WITH IS.

I have never been interested in the 24-70L II or it's predecessor, but I do understand the frustration among people who were looking forward to the MK II (with IS).

There is a sizeable chunk of people (many not even on CR.. yes there are Canon fans outside of CR ) that were torn between the 24-105 F4 with IS or the 24-70 f2.8 no IS, should they go with a faster lens but no IS or slower lens with IS that was cheaper/ sharper. So many of them waited... and when the replacement for the 24-70 was announced without IS, I am sure many of them felt let down. I can understand their frustration.... they have no worthy partner for their 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii ... Let them grieve and vent. They are our fellow Canoners.

Then again for all we know canon COULD be working on (hypothetically speaking) turning the midsize range into the 70-200 series such as 2.8 (24-70) with and without IS, and the F4 (24-105) with and without IS... It's cool being bummed and i get that... but perhaps enough messages/emails/contact regarding this, you may see it into completion, just beware what you are asking for... Such as the 70-200 is having a $600 premium, you could see an already expensive lens get even more expensive.

 

[KeithR]

What is so unbelievable about it?

The idea that anyone on POTN is going to have the first clue about whether the next version of the lens will have IS?

 

[AprilForever]

When Canon started the Megapixel race the only thing you read on forums was:

Why can't Canon do like Nikon.
Less MP and clean high ISO images (like d700/d3s)

Now Canon is doing exactly this ( flagship 1dx) !
Always complain. So many forum topics where people are switching to Nikon ? why ?

I am certain 99% will not need 36mp images.
I would say go outside and take some pictures.
All current cameras (Canon and Nikon) will do just fine for most of us. (I would say all of us)

I really hope Canon will not go into MP race.

Edward van Altena

Don't discount other people's needs because they don't match your own, some people have a use for higher MP. My "serious" photography is aerial/realestate/recon. The ability to keep zooming in on an image for details that were unknown at the time of shooting is huge. Printing? Who does that? Pop the image via wifi for display on a 55" LED.

I'm with you here. I like having as many MP's as possible. Why? Cropping! I shoot birds. And those of you who do well understand the phenomenon. And those of you who would tell me to just get a longer lens, two problems:

1. I don't have 12,000 spare bucks hanging around.

2. An 800 5.6 is very hard to take and use in many of the places I like to go. Humping through the everglades with my current lens is hard enough...

So, is cropping the ideal solution? Maybe not on paper, and perhaps not in a forum discussion, but on the field, and back home on my computer, it is the ideal solution for me.

 

[K-amps]

Then again for all we know canon COULD be working on (hypothetically speaking) turning the midsize range into the 70-200 series such as 2.8 (24-70) with and without IS, and the F4 (24-105) with and without IS... It's cool being bummed and i get that... but perhaps enough messages/emails/contact regarding this, you may see it into completion, just beware what you are asking for... Such as the 70-200 is having a $600 premium, you could see an already expensive lens get even more expensive.

I can pay $2k for a lens worthy enough to pair with the 70-200 f/2.8 mk.ii

Make it IS, and make it white and make it 77mm filter Better yet, make it 20-70mm F2.8 and I will pay $2.5k for it!

 

[Maui5150]

The childish/silliness is continuing on POTN. Someone is asking whether IS will be available on the Mk III version of the 24-70mm. Unbelieveable!!

What is so unbelievable about it?

Most people are pissed that Canon made the 24-70L MK II without IS, while "lowly" Tamron releases their new 24-70 WITH IS.

I have never been interested in the 24-70L II or it's predecessor, but I do understand the frustration among people who were looking forward to the MK II (with IS).

Well given the performance of some of the previous Tamron 28-75s, IS is the least of the problems. Maybe they got their act together, but the 28-75 was know as slow and having focusing issues in low light and having a lot of softness and CA.

After all, I can dig up an old Yugo, throw a huge super-charger on it, and it still does not mean the car's suspension is crap and while the engine may race faster, it is still a crap car.

Hey... Sigma has got a 70-200 F/2.8 with IS... I still would take the Canon NON-IS version over it, and probably take both the Canon F/4s as well. Hell, the Canon non-IS is almost the same price as the Sigma with IS... What a rip-off... ah... Not!

 

[awinphoto]

The childish/silliness is continuing on POTN. Someone is asking whether IS will be available on the Mk III version of the 24-70mm. Unbelieveable!!

What is so unbelievable about it?

Most people are pissed that Canon made the 24-70L MK II without IS, while "lowly" Tamron releases their new 24-70 WITH IS.

I have never been interested in the 24-70L II or it's predecessor, but I do understand the frustration among people who were looking forward to the MK II (with IS).

Well given the performance of some of the previous Tamron 28-75s, IS is the least of the problems. Maybe they got their act together, but the 28-75 was know as slow and having focusing issues in low light and having a lot of softness and CA.

After all, I can dig up an old Yugo, throw a huge super-charger on it, and it still does not mean the car's suspension is crap and while the engine may race faster, it is still a crap car.

Hey... Sigma has got a 70-200 F/2.8 with IS... I still would take the Canon NON-IS version over it, and probably take both the Canon F/4s as well. Hell, the Canon non-IS is almost the same price as the Sigma with IS... What a rip-off... ah... Not!

I personally dont know so dont flame me, but did Tamron ever get a version of USM to quiet their AF motor? The last I knew they never got that going yet... Has this changed or are the lenses still noisy?

 

[Jim K]

I'm with you here. I like having as many MP's as possible. Why? Cropping! I shoot birds. And those of you who do well understand the phenomenon. And those of you who would tell me to just get a longer lens, two problems:

1. I don't have 12,000 spare bucks hanging around.

2. An 800 5.6 is very hard to take and use in many of the places I like to go. Humping through the everglades with my current lens is hard enough...

So, is cropping the ideal solution? Maybe not on paper, and perhaps not in a forum discussion, but on the field, and back home on my computer, it is the ideal solution for me.

re:#2 Right now Artie Morris is out on his Southwest Florida Workshop and probably has a porter/caddy carrying his 800, 1D4, Gitzo tripod and gimbal head. He blogged about wanting someone to carry his 800 setup and they could carry their own smaller kit and attend all the workshop functions for free.

Like you the 800 and new Series II superteles are out of my range. But I may get a 1D4 before the go away.

 

[photophreek]

Ricku - I'll tell you how unbelieveable it is........the 24-70 III is probably 10 years away. Don't you think that asking a question about a lens that's a decade away is kinda....you know, silly?

BTW, why is IS such a deal breaker for everybody when the "charts" say that the lens will out resolve Canon's best zoom ever? IS has nothing to do with the IQ of the lens.

I think it's time for the Canon fanboys to take some real pictures rather than cleaning/polishing and fondling their lenses and whining about gears that is a decade away

 

[altenae]

I think it's time for the Canon fanboys to take some real pictures rather than cleaning/polishing and fondling their lenses and whining about gears that is a decade away

+1

 

[jcns]

it's a matter of economics
suppose Canon is considering producing a lower grade/consumer level 600 or 800 mm lens.
They still need to factor cost of R&D, tooling and materials.
How many do you think they could sell? And is the volume enough to cover up the initial capital investment (R&D, tooling)?
My guess is NO.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm with you here. I like having as many MP's as possible. Why? Cropping! I shoot birds. And those of you who do well understand the phenomenon. And those of you who would tell me to just get a longer lens, two problems:

1. I don't have 12,000 spare bucks hanging around.

2. An 800 5.6 is very hard to take and use in many of the places I like to go. Humping through the everglades with my current lens is hard enough...

So, is cropping the ideal solution? Maybe not on paper, and perhaps not in a forum discussion, but on the field, and back home on my computer, it is the ideal solution for me.

Yes, if you can have your landscape cam also perform well for birds too then that sounds good to me.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Well given the performance of some of the previous Tamron 28-75s, IS is the least of the problems. Maybe they got their act together, but the 28-75 was know as slow and having focusing issues in low light and having a lot of softness and CA.

All I can say is my Tamron 28-75 has barely any CA showing on APS-C and while it has some on FF it has less than the 24-105L I tried (and it was sharper center and edge than the L as well). The L had a bit more contrast and much faster AF.

My Tamron 17-50 2.8 was better than my 17-40L.

That said the Tamron 70-200 2.8 has terrible AF for that sort of lens (which often gets used for sports) and the Tamron 70-300VC while offering a ton for the price and fast AF for Tamron does have worse image quality than the Canon 70-300mm IS L and AF that is only about half the speed.

The MTF curves for the 24-70 II look so stunning that I have a hard time imaging the Tamron matching it but the Tamron might end up being a pretty decent lens all the same and the AF will likely be fast enough for anyone not shooting top level indoor sports with it, my guess. I bet it does better than the old Canon 24-70 for image quality.

 

[wickidwombat]

Ricku - I'll tell you how unbelieveable it is........the 24-70 III is probably 10 years away. Don't you think that asking a question about a lens that's a decade away is kinda....you know, silly?

BTW, why is IS such a deal breaker for everybody when the "charts" say that the lens will out resolve Canon's best zoom ever? IS has nothing to do with the IQ of the lens.

I think it's time for the Canon fanboys to take some real pictures rather than cleaning/polishing and fondling their lenses and whining about gears that is a decade away

Hey lens fondling is perfectly acceptable in the privacy of your own home... :O

 

[psolberg]

When Canon started the Megapixel race the only thing you read on forums was:

Why can't Canon do like Nikon.
Less MP and clean high ISO images (like d700/d3s)

Now Canon is doing exactly this ( flagship 1dx) !
Always complain. So many forum topics where people are switching to Nikon ? why ?

I am certain 99% will not need 36mp images.
I would say go outside and take some pictures.
All current cameras (Canon and Nikon) will do just fine for most of us. (I would say all of us)

I really hope Canon will not go into MP race.

Edward van Altena

agreed. I honestly don't think the majority even needs anything over 12MP as nikon proved by giving something alot of people wanted in return: class leading low noise and huge DR. thousands of great images being made and plenty of huge prints sold. didn't affect anybody in the slightest. certainly their decision to keep low gave them a huge boost BUT pretty much caused all the MP maniacs to come over to canon....so in a way I kind of see why they are begging to get more because 20MP is the new 12MP and this crowd is obsseded with big numbers even if just yesterday they were boasting about their 21MP marvel and how it was "perfect".

likewise, people who shot in really demanding light conditions and used to flawless AF and speed, are now scratching their heads in the nikon camp and looking for canon to stay low in the MP count and speed. Many argued 20MP was too much, it was slow yada yada. All we hear now about the D800. So trust me, complainers will complain and plenty of Nikon guys want to switch to what the hope will be a low MP/high ISO future in canon.

So all the MP chasers and high ISO chasers will have to find a new home as will all the MP chasers. though for them because honestly, things go back and forth between these copanies so they'll be back eventually. smart photographers will just shoot great stuff with what they have and not mind the other brand.

My advise to anybody feeling a bit to much stockholm symdrome (which is all this boils down to) is to simply go back to the old 5DII vs D700 threads in a nikon/canon board and replace 12MP with 21MP and 21MP with 36MP and D700 with 5DmkIII and 5DmkII with D800. There is bound to be a rationale that will justify any choice you want to make and everything will be good again.

Anybody wondering what stockholm syndrom is, is what happens when hostages side with their captors. just think about how silly is to put any emotional stake in camera companies.....

 

[briansquibb]

Ricku - I'll tell you how unbelieveable it is........the 24-70 III is probably 10 years away. Don't you think that asking a question about a lens that's a decade away is kinda....you know, silly?

BTW, why is IS such a deal breaker for everybody when the "charts" say that the lens will out resolve Canon's best zoom ever? IS has nothing to do with the IQ of the lens.

I think it's time for the Canon fanboys to take some real pictures rather than cleaning/polishing and fondling their lenses and whining about gears that is a decade away

Hey lens fondling is perfectly acceptable in the privacy of your own home... :O

8) 8) 8)