Picked up Fuji Xt1 - was blown away - where is Canon?
- Thread starter koolman
- Start date
Aglet said:
Then you would be ignoring the influence of Luigi Colani and the seminal T90 design that is the birthplace of EOS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Colani
Upvote
0
And it seems obvious that either the design or the functionality was so exceptional that almost any other SLR manufacturer did copy it. The only thing about this could be that the Minolta 7000 was the first but rather edged approach on the new design.privatebydesign said:
I'd prefer the more ergonomic eos design over an A1 or Nikon DF at all times.
And I can remember the enthusiastic reaction back in 1986 when the T90 was released.
Upvote
0
Maximilian said:
this was about the era of early mechatronics where microprocessors and electronic control of mechanical systems would allow designers more freedom to move things around for better ergonomics. A shutter release could go anywhere for quite a while but a lever and mechanicals needed to line up to move mirrors and shutters that could now be cocked with a motor, etc.
ditto, but I like looking at an A1 or DF more than I like looking at the more ergonomic and well arranged EOS body we have available today, which just kinda looks like a big dark lump with some shiny bits on opposing sides.
altho, I had no complaints about the layout of my A1, which I still have. It's still nicer to use than a DF.
Or the FE I just ran some film thru.
alas, I don't. I was quite happy with my A1 at the time and didn't pay attention. A couple well-worn ones passed thru my hands as part of some larger acquisitions much later and I remember thinking they were very plastic-icky compared to my A1 and I passed them along without even trying them.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
If you were to use an 8x10 (or even 4x5) view camera for your architectural shots, there are a wide variety of Fuji lenses that will work perfectly. Or, if you were heartset on using a Fuji camera and lens combo, the GX680 is a good option (Plus you can easily add a digital back). You could also use Fuji film to capture the image on (realistically, Fuji is your only choice if you wanted to shoot colour transparencies). You could then print the image using a Fuji enlarging lens. If you "care about the final product", Fuji has you covered on this one.
Of course, if Canon's "amateur" full frame format is providing sufficient image quality in your eyes, well.......
Upvote
0
Also, it seems a given here that the "best" camera is the best selling camera.
And the best selling camera in the world is...
drum roll please...
The Fuji Instax.
(at least, assuming you don't call the GoPro or the iPhone a camera)
Go Fuji!!!
Canon cameras must be pretty bad if they can't produce a model which even gets close to Instax sales. Personally, I blame the poor sensor and bad DR.
And the best selling camera in the world is...
drum roll please...
The Fuji Instax.
(at least, assuming you don't call the GoPro or the iPhone a camera)
Go Fuji!!!
Canon cameras must be pretty bad if they can't produce a model which even gets close to Instax sales. Personally, I blame the poor sensor and bad DR.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Hillsilly said:
Sorry, but no, No...a thousand times NO! The appropriate correlate of sales volume is that higher sales means the camera meets the needs of more people.
Hillsilly said:
Taken together with iPhone sales (I read somewhere recently that 80% of iPhone users say the camera is their most used feature), what that says is most people need/want the ability to instantly share their images, whether physically or electronically. Canon obviously knows this, thus the inclusion of Wi-Fi in consumer models (and more recently, NFC).
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Nope not to me. It correlates to the advertising strategy, security of consumers in the company, faith in the product because others are buying it. How many people that buy cameras, including the top end models, actually know why they are buying it?? How can they when they do not even fully know their needs? They buy it because it is the thing to do. Buying Canon is the thing to do by many. Of course this thinking does not apply to actual photographers. "Best Selling" is the term herd mentality consumers love to go by.
Canon over time have created the aura in the general masses that they are the best and reaping the harvest.
Note: I am not putting down Canon in any manner or not saying that 1dx is not the best DSLR there is for sports photographers but questioning if largest selling is actually the best. 'Meets need' is not appropriate either as most don't know their needs and buy because friends or salesman says so.
Upvote
0
"Meets need' is not appropriate either as most don't know their needs and buy because friends or salesman says so"
What an incredibly logically-flawed A$$umption. No need commenting further on that one.
I also am amazed at how little knowledge people really do have of DR. To say a sensor has "poor dynamic range" doesn't make the slightest bit of sense since DR changes with ISO. Maybe it's the lack of physics knowledge. Canon has top DR at higher ISO's. So I could argue the D800 has very poor DR. Because at 3200 and above it absolutely SUCKS whereas the 1Dx still maintains 9.7 stops.
Who cares if a camera has 13 or 14 or 15 stops of DR at ISO 100? You have plenty of light if you are shooting at ISO 100 so why do you need that many stops?? I need all the DR I can get at higher ISO's (where it makes sense) and actually Canon is very, very good in that regard.
What an incredibly logically-flawed A$$umption. No need commenting further on that one.
I also am amazed at how little knowledge people really do have of DR. To say a sensor has "poor dynamic range" doesn't make the slightest bit of sense since DR changes with ISO. Maybe it's the lack of physics knowledge. Canon has top DR at higher ISO's. So I could argue the D800 has very poor DR. Because at 3200 and above it absolutely SUCKS whereas the 1Dx still maintains 9.7 stops.
Who cares if a camera has 13 or 14 or 15 stops of DR at ISO 100? You have plenty of light if you are shooting at ISO 100 so why do you need that many stops?? I need all the DR I can get at higher ISO's (where it makes sense) and actually Canon is very, very good in that regard.
Upvote
0
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Whilst many continue to make big statements from the comfort of their home or office, most have not walked the walk.
Before knocking anything, go get your hands on whatever it is for a few weeks. Talk is cheap. Go find out for yourselves how good or bad something is. Then we can resume conversation.
Conjecture and opinions based on some BS you read online are like @$$holes, everyones got one.
I for one can tell you based on ownership experience with numerous Canon bodies/lenses, the Sony a7r/55mm, and multiple Fuji bodies/lenses how each performs in my hands. I also have images as proof of what each of those rigs can be made to do in my hands. Because of this, I find it laughable when people draw conclusions about equipment based on their never having used them.
You can knock Fuji all day, but do so after you have owned one or had one in use in your possession for a while. Otherwise, you are just measurebating or doing guesswork based on someone else's opinions from the interwebs.
As a final note, this in no way takes away from the fact that all of these different systems have different qualities to offer over the others respectively. It is because of this that I still have about 20k in my Canon kit, a very much loved Fuji kit, and no more Sony kit.
Before knocking anything, go get your hands on whatever it is for a few weeks. Talk is cheap. Go find out for yourselves how good or bad something is. Then we can resume conversation.
Conjecture and opinions based on some BS you read online are like @$$holes, everyones got one.
I for one can tell you based on ownership experience with numerous Canon bodies/lenses, the Sony a7r/55mm, and multiple Fuji bodies/lenses how each performs in my hands. I also have images as proof of what each of those rigs can be made to do in my hands. Because of this, I find it laughable when people draw conclusions about equipment based on their never having used them.
You can knock Fuji all day, but do so after you have owned one or had one in use in your possession for a while. Otherwise, you are just measurebating or doing guesswork based on someone else's opinions from the interwebs.
As a final note, this in no way takes away from the fact that all of these different systems have different qualities to offer over the others respectively. It is because of this that I still have about 20k in my Canon kit, a very much loved Fuji kit, and no more Sony kit.
Upvote
0
JohnDizzo15 said:
I wonder how Fuji can help me to continue to shoots sports and make MONEY. All the other crap, I don't really care. It goes both ways. People applaud Fuji for more DR this that and the other and Canon sucks. DR at low ISO is such a small, small part, and quite frankly absolutely useless aspect, to me. Wonder how many Fuji cameras will be at the Division I outdoor track meet this year in Eugene? I wonder how many 1Dx/400 f/2.8 combos there will be. Yes talk is cheap. That's why I get the gear that makes me MONEY while others just make incredibly stupid blanket statements that Fuji is better than Canon or Fuji has more DR than Canon. I'm switching to Fuji if Canon doesn't offer me 15 stops of DR at ISO 50! Most of us are just so sick of this crap it's hard to even visit a CANON rumors site anymore.
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
I don't disagree with you on the need for the Canon rig for what it currently does best which is precisely why I still have most of my money locked up in my Canon kit. I have no real complaints about it as it gets the job done when I need it to. Still doesn't change the fact that for everything else, I generally reach for the Fuji.
At the moment, Fuji will indeed not help you get sport shots. That was in no way any part of what I was getting at. My issue is with people knocking the system before they have used it.
And for the record, I've done plenty of sport/action shooting with the Fuji when I didn't have another rig with me or needed to go light weight and it did just fine. I wouldn't try to do BIF over my Canon rigs, but it is by no means incapable as an action shooter.
You wonder how many Fujis will be at the track this year? My guess, zero. That still doesn't validate some of the negative statements some forum members have had about the Fuji system as they have no idea what it is like (hence have no idea what they're talking about).
For the record, I don't believe the Fuji is better because it has more DR or anything of the sort. I personally like it because it has high IQ while remaining compact, electronic shutter up to 1/32000th, completely silent shooting, great EVF (also huge for MF lenses), tilting LCD, fast live view operation, and operates very well single-handed for my uses.
Also for the record, I've never once stated Fuji > Canon as that makes zero sense to try and simplify any comparison in such a manner.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
