Does Canon really deserve this?
- Thread starter sanj
- Start date
Sunnystate said:
Crusades? Glorify? Blimey where did I miss all that?
I'm sat at work in the UK, the day outside is fairly vile, dark, raining and in most ways utterly miserable for standing out on Hayling Island's Oyster Beds my preferred haunt for my preferred BIF photography. So, no, I think I'll pass and spend a little spare time discussing cameras
.All that said I think you and I probably would have a lot to agree about when it comes to large corporations.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
sanj said:
What about lenses? Yesterday I went on a 5 mile hike with my 840mm f/5.6 combo (600/4 II + 1.4xIII), shooting flying raptors entirely handheld. After lunch, I shot a lighthouse, and on the narrow spit of land, only an ultrawide lens with shift could capture the full height with correct verticals, so I used my new TS-E 17/4. How's the competition doing on meeting those needs? Should I go to forums dedicated to other brands and complain about their lack of innovation in areas which matter to me?
I get that people want it all (and usually for free). But no single manufacturer offers it all. So, you have to make a choice...
- Keep wishing for one system to offer everything.
- Complain incessantly on the Internet.
- Pick the system that best meets their needs.
Regarding the first, my dad used to say wish in one hand and...well, you get the idea (or Google will fill in the rest). Regarding the second, that's certainly your prerogative, but hopefully you understand that doing so here is worse than useless. That leaves the third option as the most logical one, by far. Kind of sad that people are so illogical...
Upvote
0
Tugela said:
Canon meets or exceeds my needs for all of those specific areas. I realize that some people do need improvements in those areas. But I frankly don't understand why they buy Canon in the first place, knowing *fully* that it doesn't meet their needs, and then complain about it? Did Canon promise them some specific future product? No, they didn't. It's like someone buying a manual focus lens and then complaining that it doesn't have autofocus.
Upvote
0
I think the reaction is quite balanced and realistic. You see almost nothing but praise and excitement in Canon lens threads (their strength) and yeah, a good bit of criticism in the camera threads. This only reflects Canon's current position behind their competition in sensor IQ, and their position as the lens selection/value leader.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Wait? You mean Sony does not have a decent combo that will produce 800MM+ at f/5.6
Who would ever need such a thing?
I think Sony has some nice products that fit a limited range and in some areas may even have a temporary advantage.
Things change over time.
Ask any one who invested in a Betamax library how that worked out for them.
Sony has a history of innovating, then cutting the cord and the big questions I would ask:
1) Is there a large enough market for people who will switch to support their DSLR bodies AND lenses for continued development
2) How well do products hold their price and is their a market - Lets face it a lot of photogs are gear hounds and the fact that I can sell off bodies and lenses at a fair exchange is a plus for those in the Canon / Nikon camps, because of demand a new users coming in. I still see decent prices on even the 70-200 F/4 or F/2.8 MK I
3) If Sony is out of the DSLR market in 5 years, what happens to all of your gear and will you then be jumping ship back to Nikon or Canon.
I think Sony is doing a nice job, but don't think there are enough people entering or switching camps to support their business, especially was the P&S market is getting pummeled. I do think Canon has to respond and step up to the plate, so will be an interesting few years
Upvote
0
sanj said:
Yes, yes and don't forget trolls who do not even own Canon equipment.
I may be the only guy posting here under his real name, but for all I know, this could be two dudes in their underwear and their 55 sock puppets each deployed to do battle against each other and one of them started the war with this post.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I don't know if it is simply ignorance here, or whether it is just conveniently forgetting, but the whole TS-E 17/4 or 840/5.6 argument is largely moot with mirrorless options these days. Why?
ADAPTERS!!
The TS-E lenses are manual lenses anyway. You lose absolutely NOTHING by adapting a TS-E to any mirrorless option out there. The argument that such a lens is "Canon Only" is, therefor, no longer valid.
I totally agree, Canon lenses are phenomenal. Which is why I consider the adaptability of any other system as paramount to it's success, in general but specifically for me. The Metabones adapters for the A7 series are good, but still a little lacking. They got better with the 4th incarnation, I've used the 3rd incarnation and there are some issues. Perhaps a 5th incarnation will solve the remaining few problems (primarily AF related...which means the ability to adapt the TS-E lenses is complete and fully compatible with an A7 camera). The adapter quality for the Samsung NX1 will also be a key selling point for me...if it lets me AF with good AF performance using my big lenses, HELL YEAH! Sign me up!
Canon's problems do not lie in their lens lineup. Actually, their lens lineup is probably one of their key strengths in a world where people are increasingly adding third party cameras to their kits. Canon's problems like in their electronics technology, primarily their sensors...and in a lack of certain features that people have been asking for for years, even decades (Auto ISO, anyone?
) Everyone who cares knows that. So bringing up unique lenses that can easily be adapted to other systems as a primary reason why Canon is better is entirely missing the point.
Upvote
0
My conclusion for most of the Canon gripes i.e. DR, MP, focus peaking etc is that these are on paper issues. We all know many or a great deal of photographers, most who print typical sizes i.e. 8 x 10, 11 x 14, 16 x 20. But really now, how many are printing on large format printers larger than 13 x 19? And how many of those are represented in the group of complainers?
I think Canon suits the needs of 99% of shooters, pro and hobbyists but complaining is just part of human nature.
It's like restaurant reviews. If you have a good experience somewhere you tell a few people but if you have a horrible meal somewhere you tell 10x more.
I think Canon suits the needs of 99% of shooters, pro and hobbyists but complaining is just part of human nature.
It's like restaurant reviews. If you have a good experience somewhere you tell a few people but if you have a horrible meal somewhere you tell 10x more.
Upvote
0
Their flash system is without doubt the most capable and feature rich flash system of any camera manufacturer.
Also the ergonomics, though always a personal thing, are mentioned time and time again as a Canon strong point.
And lets not forget service, Canon are the only camera manufacturers to offer a service like CPS, Nikon's version is a comparative joke and Sony believe customer service is 'give them one of the new ones' but it doesn't work with any of the old stuff.
This is sounding more and more like a Monty Python sketch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE
So apart from the best lenses, flash system, ergonomics, service, reliability, etc, "What have Canon ever done for us?"
Also the ergonomics, though always a personal thing, are mentioned time and time again as a Canon strong point.
And lets not forget service, Canon are the only camera manufacturers to offer a service like CPS, Nikon's version is a comparative joke and Sony believe customer service is 'give them one of the new ones' but it doesn't work with any of the old stuff.
This is sounding more and more like a Monty Python sketch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE
So apart from the best lenses, flash system, ergonomics, service, reliability, etc, "What have Canon ever done for us?"
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Brought us the tiniest dslr ever ? ;D
Monty Python's Life of Brian has to be one of the funniest films ever made. I never get tired of watching it !
Upvote
0
Actually the great Canon RT radio wireless flash system is another example for Canon acting plain stupid.
Potentiallly one of Canon's strongest USPs, but their head honchos are NOT leveraging it ... out of pure greed. Still only selling the big fat expensive master-blaster 600EX-RT. And the ST-E3-RT cobntroller without AF-assist. Waiting until Yongnuo, Shanny, Phottix and all those other Chinese copycats are bringing copied versions at half price. Instead of building wireless RT Commanders into all of their new DSLRs ... should definitely have been in the 7D II.
Same story with the other potentially huge USP of Canon .. eye control focus (ECF) - the most intuitive way there is to select the desired AF-field. Simply abandoned instead of coming up with an improved version v.2.0. Canon asleep at the wheel ... until Sony will take up that feature and add it sometime soon to their cameras.
Ergonomics ... yes. BUT, why not use the excellent touch screen on the 7D II [and higher up cameras], why no fully articulated display? [for all of you "makes it weaker, it will break"-guys: you can turn that display around, flat against back of camera. There is NO better protection for the LCD than that. You don't have to fold it out, if you are afraid to).
Service ... well, maybe in the US and Asia. In Europe, at least in smaller countries, CPS is a laughable joke. ANd if you're not eligible for CPS, service is AS BAD as it is for Nikon, Sony and all the others. Not a bit better.
Potentiallly one of Canon's strongest USPs, but their head honchos are NOT leveraging it ... out of pure greed. Still only selling the big fat expensive master-blaster 600EX-RT. And the ST-E3-RT cobntroller without AF-assist. Waiting until Yongnuo, Shanny, Phottix and all those other Chinese copycats are bringing copied versions at half price. Instead of building wireless RT Commanders into all of their new DSLRs ... should definitely have been in the 7D II.
Same story with the other potentially huge USP of Canon .. eye control focus (ECF) - the most intuitive way there is to select the desired AF-field. Simply abandoned instead of coming up with an improved version v.2.0. Canon asleep at the wheel ... until Sony will take up that feature and add it sometime soon to their cameras.
Ergonomics ... yes. BUT, why not use the excellent touch screen on the 7D II [and higher up cameras], why no fully articulated display? [for all of you "makes it weaker, it will break"-guys: you can turn that display around, flat against back of camera. There is NO better protection for the LCD than that. You don't have to fold it out, if you are afraid to).
Service ... well, maybe in the US and Asia. In Europe, at least in smaller countries, CPS is a laughable joke. ANd if you're not eligible for CPS, service is AS BAD as it is for Nikon, Sony and all the others. Not a bit better.
Upvote
0
Various responses to multiple posts:
More dynamic range means more contrast, not less. It means that the photo can represent a wider range of brightness values. Yes, if you then deliberately squash the entire dynamic range of the camera into an sRGB image, you'll have less perceived contrast on the things that matter, but why would you do that? In a more realistic post-processing workflow, you'll end up with the same amount of contrast, just with bigger safety margins for correcting overexposed or underexposed images (which you can throw away disproportionately to make the picture brighter or darker) without blown out whites or blacks.
99.9% of the time, that doesn't matter. But when that .1% happens to burn you on a photo that you care about, the two-stop difference between a 6D and a crop body makes a world of difference, and an extra stop or two on top of that would be most welcome, even if it is mainly a "just in case" feature.
There's no reason that this should be true in principle, so if that's what folks are seeing in practice, it probably indicates that the IS systems are simply not precise enough.
Under optimal conditions, there's little difference between my 6D and my iPhone 5. Of course, real-world shooting isn't always optimal, and poor lighting, long distances from the subject, etc. can make those minor differences turn into huge differences.
The big reason folks want more megapixels, in my experience, is the ability to crop more in post processing. If a camera's resolution is good enough, you can shoot wider, resulting in fewer misses, confident that you can crop it in post and get a reasonable image.
This particularly comes into play when shooting wildlife and sports, because of the distances and the sometimes erratic subject motion characteristic to both. For both situations, a full-frame camera with the pixel density of a crop body would be a serious win. Unfortunately, Canon chooses to keep full-frame pixel density relatively low, presumably because they've been unable to scale the high-density sensors up to larger sizes while maintaining an acceptable reject rate. That's pretty annoying. Lots of us would really like the reach of a crop body, but without the crop.
With flash prices as cheap as they are, I stopped shooting anything but RAW several years back. From what I can tell, outside of a few specific markets (e.g. news gathering), that seems to mostly be a consumer feature. Unfortunately, consumers are buying fewer and fewer dedicated cameras these days, so I doubt that Canon's lead in in-camera JPEG rendering is very meaningful in the grand scheme of things.
Although that could certainly be done, it would make a lot more sense to just use a hybrid viewfinder that can be an EVF or an OVF on demand. And a properly done hybrid design could also allow for all sorts of overlays even in OVF mode (e.g. zebra stripes on overexposed areas, focus peaking, etc.)
dak723 said:
More dynamic range means more contrast, not less. It means that the photo can represent a wider range of brightness values. Yes, if you then deliberately squash the entire dynamic range of the camera into an sRGB image, you'll have less perceived contrast on the things that matter, but why would you do that? In a more realistic post-processing workflow, you'll end up with the same amount of contrast, just with bigger safety margins for correcting overexposed or underexposed images (which you can throw away disproportionately to make the picture brighter or darker) without blown out whites or blacks.
99.9% of the time, that doesn't matter. But when that .1% happens to burn you on a photo that you care about, the two-stop difference between a 6D and a crop body makes a world of difference, and an extra stop or two on top of that would be most welcome, even if it is mainly a "just in case" feature.
dak723 said:
There's no reason that this should be true in principle, so if that's what folks are seeing in practice, it probably indicates that the IS systems are simply not precise enough.
dak723 said:
Under optimal conditions, there's little difference between my 6D and my iPhone 5. Of course, real-world shooting isn't always optimal, and poor lighting, long distances from the subject, etc. can make those minor differences turn into huge differences.
The big reason folks want more megapixels, in my experience, is the ability to crop more in post processing. If a camera's resolution is good enough, you can shoot wider, resulting in fewer misses, confident that you can crop it in post and get a reasonable image.
This particularly comes into play when shooting wildlife and sports, because of the distances and the sometimes erratic subject motion characteristic to both. For both situations, a full-frame camera with the pixel density of a crop body would be a serious win. Unfortunately, Canon chooses to keep full-frame pixel density relatively low, presumably because they've been unable to scale the high-density sensors up to larger sizes while maintaining an acceptable reject rate. That's pretty annoying. Lots of us would really like the reach of a crop body, but without the crop.
PhotoCat said:
With flash prices as cheap as they are, I stopped shooting anything but RAW several years back. From what I can tell, outside of a few specific markets (e.g. news gathering), that seems to mostly be a consumer feature. Unfortunately, consumers are buying fewer and fewer dedicated cameras these days, so I doubt that Canon's lead in in-camera JPEG rendering is very meaningful in the grand scheme of things.
Sporgon said:
Although that could certainly be done, it would make a lot more sense to just use a hybrid viewfinder that can be an EVF or an OVF on demand. And a properly done hybrid design could also allow for all sorts of overlays even in OVF mode (e.g. zebra stripes on overexposed areas, focus peaking, etc.)
Upvote
0
sanj said:
Perhaps if we all made more effort to learn how to get the best out of the equipment we have rather than griping about theoretical technical specifications and the grass always being greener in the next field, we'd all be happier bunnies and actually achieve more in the real world?
Upvote
0
jrista said:
I do think this time it's you that might be just missing a point. It's not moot at all. Canon have an R&D spend and if they had piled lots more of their money into say sensors (above the progress being made in things like DPAF and AF etc) then some of these lenses would possibly not have seen the light of day. Even a corporation the size of Canon has its limits and it would be very risky to attempt being the best at every aspect.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
Not at all, some of the comments ridiculing some of the decisions by Canon are very well made, particularly on the software side where the holding back of basic 'features' is laughable. But Canon are not the only camera company that play that frustrating game of never quite seeming to get it completely right in one go, they all do it.
But much of the core criticism is just as laughable. For instance I don't buy into the 'crippling the RT system' meme, I think having just the 600 and the ST-E3-RT is fine, if I want AF assist I'll have a 600 on camera anyway, after all it is very rare that most people are in a dynamic flash situation and couldn't use any on camera light, even if they are bouncing it, and at $455 a lot of the time it is still way cheaper than the Nikon SB910 that doesn't even have radio functionality, plus if you want to mess up a perfectly good RT system buying crappy Chinese 'clones' to work with it then go for it. OR, point me to another camera manufacturer that makes their own radio controlled flash system, oh, you can't.......
Besides, if Canon don't make what you want then go buy it elsewhere, nobody ever forced anybody to buy or keep Canon gear and it holds its value very well so moving systems isn't that expensive even if you have been tied into it for years or have a big investment in it.
I just sold a ten year old lens for $900, I bought it new for $1,250, that is a $35 a year rental cost! Even the 1D I just sold at a depreciated $6,000 and very low shutter count cost me less than 30c an image, around a 1/3 the price of the film per image it replaced.
Despite peoples opinions I am not a Canon apologist, I'd like to think I am more of a realist, Canon can offer us what they do now because of what they have done in the past, and as a career decision to use Canon way back in the '70's before I knew what I was doing and again in the early 2000's when I moved to AF, I am generally happy with what they have offered me, though I do have some frustration about the lack of a 1Ds MkIII replacement. I have no doubt that if I had chosen Nikon on either or both of those occasions I'd be just as happy.
Canon make very good cameras that fit in with an even better system, if that isn't for you then buy a different brand, nobody cares, but if you can't create the images you want with the gear currently offered then don't look for the lack of this or that feature as the excuse, the reason for your failure is six inches behind the viewfinder.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
