- Status
J
jius
Guest
ELK said:
Think you are getting me wrong! I would love to see firmware releases and wish there were more, but what I expect and has happened is that Canon seems to follow the $ rather than the customer. 500D was a classic example. Did Canon release a firmware to give manual controls as many a petition and customer asked? NO! - they just put it all in a new camera. Could they still produce a firmware for manual controls - hell yeah!. Do I think Canon will do this just 'for the love of their customers' NO!
So my point was that requests/petitions/emails/phone calls to Canon by customers to have Microadjustment added to 60D may very well be answered by Canon, but in the form of a newer model at a later date, as in the 500D case I mentioned. It would be great to see Canon do a firmware update prior to release (as a very possible 60D purchaser myself), however if they do, it will be for the $ not for the love of the customer which was my point. They may listen to customers, but only give a little here and there to keep you hooked on Canon and looking for the next big thing that may or may not come - kind of like the Crack Dealers of the Camera industry. But perhaps with Nikon upping their game perhaps Canon may have to re-think a little.
Upvote
0
You know, I always wondered why you actually need AF microadjustment. Yes, I know the ffects and I actually got a lens or two that needed that adjustment. But heck, the focusing system measueres trough the lens, if the focus is off it should drive it until the sensors say it's the sharpest possible.
Upvote
0
E
Edwin Herdman
Guest
Hey everybody, this topic finally got me to register!
Bottom line - if you are not going to buy a 7D but could get a T2i 60D, tell them microadjustment is the defining feature and really matters to you (for me it does). You could mention that the 7D has many features far beyond the cheaper DSLRs but you're too price-restricted to enter that segment. (I figure it wouldn't hurt to be honest; it may help offset whatever marketing research they've been collecting.)
About the cost-versus-benefit discussion - there have been lots of posts back and forth on microadjustment, with some people claiming the costs of adding it to any given camera are unknown, and others saying that it is essentially free. There's no proof either way, but I'm leaning toward it being something that can be added fairly inexpensively. That said, people ought to know that there are reports that some lenses can be corrected in one spot but not another through adjustment - i.e. a zoom that can be corrected either at the wide or tele end but not both simultaneously. So Canon does have a good argument for not including it - hobbyists who use microadjustment without really knowing what they're doing can make things worse for themselves, and either clog up the support hotline or, worse from Canon's point of view, blame the EOS system for a PEBCAC ("problem exists between camera and chair") situation and switch to Nikon, 4/3rds, or back to P&S systems. (The flip side - people who have good lenses and are frugal with camera bodies will be spending money, their own to go to service centers or Canon's to have different lens samples shipped out to find a "match" when microadjustment would take care of the problem with no additional expense to Canon.)
From the business perspective, Canon has a clear motivation here that they will not likely admit outright. This is all about market segmentation. They want you to buy the 7D instead. But if you want to get a 7D, you need the pentaprism and other features. If you have enough money for a 70-300mm L or above, the reasoning goes, you have enough money for a 7D, and they want to provide just one logical choice for you. This reasoning does not convince me, but there you have it.
But there is an equally good reason - more convincing to me - for demanding microadjustment (the logic of keeping it out to "protect" the 7D's segment I'll cover further in a bit - I'll say that, given what the 7D gained for the price added, it's not in danger of being squeezed out any time soon). For the "discerning amateur" or the person who prefers small APS-C cameras for weight and handling - the 60D is an obvious choice after the smaller redesign, and the 60D becomes yet more obvious choice when you can be certain your glass will perform as well as possible after adjustment. (Perhaps Canon is thinking that most people who shoot entry-level DSLRs shoot only kit lenses - I have seen evidence both ways. Personally, since full-frame is currently out of my price range - something to aspire to later - I put my money into lenses and buy the cheapest body that is as functional as possible. I couldn't stereotype the Forums - some of us might be the same, though some of us are also too camera-obsessed and neglect the lenses. I also know some shooters who just buy the Nikon D3000 because it is the cheapest thing in the store that looks like an SLR.)
I would not add my reasoning to any inquiry or statement to Canon - they don't need to hear it, they just need to see that there are enough people who will buy a 60D with microadjustment who would otherwise default to the cheaper T2i, and who are not going to leap segments to the more expensive 7D: Since Canon is playing the market segmentation game, we can as well. Here is my reasoning: I have a T1i (500D). Recently Canon upgraded most of its product lines, and I am left with a realistic choice between the T2i, the 7D, and the 60D. The T2i is an upgrade over the previous model in every respect (well, other than shots per battery, and the number of shots per memory card if you want to get picky - for some reason Consumer Reports rated the T2i below the T1i, which strikes me as ridiculous, considering how important low light performance is to me) and would be the obvious choice for me. The 7D is bulkier and expensive, but has professional features (magnesium frame structure - tangent: To my knowledge all the EOS cameras have "metal bodies," just some have more engineering plastic than others, and the key difference is the type of metal used: Stainless steel versus the heat-dissipating magnesium of the 7D, better for amateur film productions). In the middle, the 60D has some upgraded features, but the sole one that would really bump it over the edge for me, doing landscapes or anything where autofocus is required, would be microadjustment. (Actually, even with landscapes, composing through the viewfinder and using the red AF confirm light should be helped by microadjustment as well.)
If there is enough interest in what may initially seem like a small feature, it may eventually become something that any company would be shamed not to have in their lineup. Make no mistake, on any similarly out-of-alignment lens and camera combo, the 60D as-is is still a slightly up-specced system than the T2i / 550D. But you won't actually be taking better shots with it (disallowing differences in how each camera utilizes the sensor data). Microadjustment would fix this in the instances where a body and lens are considerably out of alignment, and a boon for shooting action and would make people feel much better about buying expensive lenses for the system.
Big picture: After the shakeup, I think we are doing better for product lines than before. This was apparently all plotted out well in advance of the 7D's release. The 7D was considered a revolution (and the name reflected this). The T2i / 550D was considered another great leap forward. So as the 550D stayed in the same segment, and the 7D represented a great upgrade (I think with minimal cost added, though again, Canon wants more of your money, not less) to the 50D segment. Unfortunately as a result the 60D had the unenviable position of seeming to switch places with the 7D. Most camera enthusiasts would have preferred something akin to a 7D Mark II be released, instead of the 60D. As an upgrade to the 550D, it is not bad at all. But, again, I think the microadjustment question is compelling.
I'm not going to disrespect Canon by tearing apart every little feature to say that the 60D's other new features are not compelling over the 550D / T2i's feature set for the price differential. But I will say that when I am counting every dollar towards either a new lens or some other way of improving the images I get, the articulated screen and 5.6 frames per second (3.4 FPS for the 500D / T1i, 3.6 FPS for the 550D, 5.6 FPS for the 60D) and especially the interface differences - quick wheel, top LCD (I love shooting my 500D one-handed, with the other hand on the manual focus TS-E) - don't actually guarantee a better image the way microadjustment does.
I don't see microadjustment taking anything away from the 7D. Yes, the 7D is in a tough spot because it does not have some of the neat features of the 60D, such as the new tilting 3:2 screen, and...well, that's about it, surprisingly. The 7D does everything else just as well and better. I'll take the pentaprism as a needed upgrade - I'll split the difference between the functionality of live view for composing shots on the ground with a tilt-shift lens - 60D advantage - versus shooting dimmer lenses (like the 70-300 L I'm considering) with the viewfinder on the 7D. But the heat-dissipating magnesium body and better battery still make the 7D a no-brainer for shooting video or even just on warm days when you're using the Live View - I've found on my T1i that heat buildup and the battery life really limit the 500D (on top of the crummy noise speckling of the sensor).
What about the future?
I would like to see microadjustment for multiple focal lengths (or possibly even focus distance - I vaguely recall hearing claims that in some cheaper primes microadjustment worked for either close, or infinity focus, but not both, could be wrong) for complete coverage of any given lens with a body.
Canon is going to have to also "get with it" and enable larger, longer video clips in the cameras. Unfortunately, the people who are most likely to use these - people using the 5x0, x0 and 7D series in place of a camcorder - will be left in the cold longer than before. To hell with the 30 minute European import tax on "video recorders;" (which in my mind isn't the main limiting factor); with SDXC out there's no reason the next cameras can't have longer clips no matter the resolution.
On the rumors front, I've been surprised that no DIGIC V processors have been spotted. Maybe that's the 1Ds replacement's big show. It would have the unfortunate effect of making the whole current line seem out-of-date. With the rather limiting range of selectable frame rates, and aliased images from rather severe undersampling of the sensors, the Digic "can't quite do 1080p / 60" IV already feels a bit old-fashioned. (What's up with the lack of 24 / 30FPS for 720p, anyway? My long T1i video segments will be halved on the T2i or above.) Very likely, whoever was postulating the Digic IV was a stopgap instead of the CPU for the entire current line (take away maybe the 1Ds) blew it. Of course, they may well be providing different operating frequences (MHz) for the various products the Digic IV is released in (I would be surprised if not, actually), giving it some lifespan like any typical microprocessor architecture, but this has been completely opaque to us consumers. The next stop for video recording, after 1080p / 60FPS, is 120 FPS for half-time, if you do things the EXILIM way (to be fair high-speed Exilim footage that I've seen looked horrid, with weird aspect ratios and bad detail and noise issues), or better sampling of the sensor.
I hope that they will increase the number of sampling points first.
Bottom line - if you are not going to buy a 7D but could get a T2i 60D, tell them microadjustment is the defining feature and really matters to you (for me it does). You could mention that the 7D has many features far beyond the cheaper DSLRs but you're too price-restricted to enter that segment. (I figure it wouldn't hurt to be honest; it may help offset whatever marketing research they've been collecting.)
About the cost-versus-benefit discussion - there have been lots of posts back and forth on microadjustment, with some people claiming the costs of adding it to any given camera are unknown, and others saying that it is essentially free. There's no proof either way, but I'm leaning toward it being something that can be added fairly inexpensively. That said, people ought to know that there are reports that some lenses can be corrected in one spot but not another through adjustment - i.e. a zoom that can be corrected either at the wide or tele end but not both simultaneously. So Canon does have a good argument for not including it - hobbyists who use microadjustment without really knowing what they're doing can make things worse for themselves, and either clog up the support hotline or, worse from Canon's point of view, blame the EOS system for a PEBCAC ("problem exists between camera and chair") situation and switch to Nikon, 4/3rds, or back to P&S systems. (The flip side - people who have good lenses and are frugal with camera bodies will be spending money, their own to go to service centers or Canon's to have different lens samples shipped out to find a "match" when microadjustment would take care of the problem with no additional expense to Canon.)
From the business perspective, Canon has a clear motivation here that they will not likely admit outright. This is all about market segmentation. They want you to buy the 7D instead. But if you want to get a 7D, you need the pentaprism and other features. If you have enough money for a 70-300mm L or above, the reasoning goes, you have enough money for a 7D, and they want to provide just one logical choice for you. This reasoning does not convince me, but there you have it.
But there is an equally good reason - more convincing to me - for demanding microadjustment (the logic of keeping it out to "protect" the 7D's segment I'll cover further in a bit - I'll say that, given what the 7D gained for the price added, it's not in danger of being squeezed out any time soon). For the "discerning amateur" or the person who prefers small APS-C cameras for weight and handling - the 60D is an obvious choice after the smaller redesign, and the 60D becomes yet more obvious choice when you can be certain your glass will perform as well as possible after adjustment. (Perhaps Canon is thinking that most people who shoot entry-level DSLRs shoot only kit lenses - I have seen evidence both ways. Personally, since full-frame is currently out of my price range - something to aspire to later - I put my money into lenses and buy the cheapest body that is as functional as possible. I couldn't stereotype the Forums - some of us might be the same, though some of us are also too camera-obsessed and neglect the lenses. I also know some shooters who just buy the Nikon D3000 because it is the cheapest thing in the store that looks like an SLR.)
I would not add my reasoning to any inquiry or statement to Canon - they don't need to hear it, they just need to see that there are enough people who will buy a 60D with microadjustment who would otherwise default to the cheaper T2i, and who are not going to leap segments to the more expensive 7D: Since Canon is playing the market segmentation game, we can as well. Here is my reasoning: I have a T1i (500D). Recently Canon upgraded most of its product lines, and I am left with a realistic choice between the T2i, the 7D, and the 60D. The T2i is an upgrade over the previous model in every respect (well, other than shots per battery, and the number of shots per memory card if you want to get picky - for some reason Consumer Reports rated the T2i below the T1i, which strikes me as ridiculous, considering how important low light performance is to me) and would be the obvious choice for me. The 7D is bulkier and expensive, but has professional features (magnesium frame structure - tangent: To my knowledge all the EOS cameras have "metal bodies," just some have more engineering plastic than others, and the key difference is the type of metal used: Stainless steel versus the heat-dissipating magnesium of the 7D, better for amateur film productions). In the middle, the 60D has some upgraded features, but the sole one that would really bump it over the edge for me, doing landscapes or anything where autofocus is required, would be microadjustment. (Actually, even with landscapes, composing through the viewfinder and using the red AF confirm light should be helped by microadjustment as well.)
If there is enough interest in what may initially seem like a small feature, it may eventually become something that any company would be shamed not to have in their lineup. Make no mistake, on any similarly out-of-alignment lens and camera combo, the 60D as-is is still a slightly up-specced system than the T2i / 550D. But you won't actually be taking better shots with it (disallowing differences in how each camera utilizes the sensor data). Microadjustment would fix this in the instances where a body and lens are considerably out of alignment, and a boon for shooting action and would make people feel much better about buying expensive lenses for the system.
Big picture: After the shakeup, I think we are doing better for product lines than before. This was apparently all plotted out well in advance of the 7D's release. The 7D was considered a revolution (and the name reflected this). The T2i / 550D was considered another great leap forward. So as the 550D stayed in the same segment, and the 7D represented a great upgrade (I think with minimal cost added, though again, Canon wants more of your money, not less) to the 50D segment. Unfortunately as a result the 60D had the unenviable position of seeming to switch places with the 7D. Most camera enthusiasts would have preferred something akin to a 7D Mark II be released, instead of the 60D. As an upgrade to the 550D, it is not bad at all. But, again, I think the microadjustment question is compelling.
I'm not going to disrespect Canon by tearing apart every little feature to say that the 60D's other new features are not compelling over the 550D / T2i's feature set for the price differential. But I will say that when I am counting every dollar towards either a new lens or some other way of improving the images I get, the articulated screen and 5.6 frames per second (3.4 FPS for the 500D / T1i, 3.6 FPS for the 550D, 5.6 FPS for the 60D) and especially the interface differences - quick wheel, top LCD (I love shooting my 500D one-handed, with the other hand on the manual focus TS-E) - don't actually guarantee a better image the way microadjustment does.
I don't see microadjustment taking anything away from the 7D. Yes, the 7D is in a tough spot because it does not have some of the neat features of the 60D, such as the new tilting 3:2 screen, and...well, that's about it, surprisingly. The 7D does everything else just as well and better. I'll take the pentaprism as a needed upgrade - I'll split the difference between the functionality of live view for composing shots on the ground with a tilt-shift lens - 60D advantage - versus shooting dimmer lenses (like the 70-300 L I'm considering) with the viewfinder on the 7D. But the heat-dissipating magnesium body and better battery still make the 7D a no-brainer for shooting video or even just on warm days when you're using the Live View - I've found on my T1i that heat buildup and the battery life really limit the 500D (on top of the crummy noise speckling of the sensor).
What about the future?
I would like to see microadjustment for multiple focal lengths (or possibly even focus distance - I vaguely recall hearing claims that in some cheaper primes microadjustment worked for either close, or infinity focus, but not both, could be wrong) for complete coverage of any given lens with a body.
Canon is going to have to also "get with it" and enable larger, longer video clips in the cameras. Unfortunately, the people who are most likely to use these - people using the 5x0, x0 and 7D series in place of a camcorder - will be left in the cold longer than before. To hell with the 30 minute European import tax on "video recorders;" (which in my mind isn't the main limiting factor); with SDXC out there's no reason the next cameras can't have longer clips no matter the resolution.
On the rumors front, I've been surprised that no DIGIC V processors have been spotted. Maybe that's the 1Ds replacement's big show. It would have the unfortunate effect of making the whole current line seem out-of-date. With the rather limiting range of selectable frame rates, and aliased images from rather severe undersampling of the sensors, the Digic "can't quite do 1080p / 60" IV already feels a bit old-fashioned. (What's up with the lack of 24 / 30FPS for 720p, anyway? My long T1i video segments will be halved on the T2i or above.) Very likely, whoever was postulating the Digic IV was a stopgap instead of the CPU for the entire current line (take away maybe the 1Ds) blew it. Of course, they may well be providing different operating frequences (MHz) for the various products the Digic IV is released in (I would be surprised if not, actually), giving it some lifespan like any typical microprocessor architecture, but this has been completely opaque to us consumers. The next stop for video recording, after 1080p / 60FPS, is 120 FPS for half-time, if you do things the EXILIM way (to be fair high-speed Exilim footage that I've seen looked horrid, with weird aspect ratios and bad detail and noise issues), or better sampling of the sensor.
I hope that they will increase the number of sampling points first.
Upvote
0
S
ssbuchanan
Guest
Really? Why don't you just keep the camera you've got?
I think that'll hurt Canon's bottom line more than you complaining about missing features.
Why don't you complain to them that the 500D doesn't have Micro AF adjustment?
Save up for another year and go straight to that full frame camera, and make do with what you've got in the meantime, and stop creating e-waste.
This is such a ridiculous thread.
I think that'll hurt Canon's bottom line more than you complaining about missing features.
Why don't you complain to them that the 500D doesn't have Micro AF adjustment?
Save up for another year and go straight to that full frame camera, and make do with what you've got in the meantime, and stop creating e-waste.
This is such a ridiculous thread.
Upvote
0
E
Edwin Herdman
Guest
Is there a particular reason for that post? Why you'd join a Forum to make a point of not discussing things is beyond me. Oldest rule of Forums - if you don't buy into something, you can easily move on. Besides, there's a lot of "let's hate on video for diluting the stills experience" type rants that need to be written.
I don't get the few posts that are openly hostile to attempts to make the platform more flexible for everyone. There is no downside for anybody in the EOS user community when people politely but firmly lay out the ground rules of what they will buy and what they won't. Canon is not going to suddenly de-spec a future release (for example) or act out of spite.
But on the 500D - well, it's an odd thing to bring up with low-light performance being a sore spot for me with the T1i. I don't like getting suckered into the update cycle (the T2i was announced before the T1i was a year old!), and I don't get terribly excited over incremental sensor and CPU changes. But the set of features - body and operative - should still be there whenever you or I decide to upgrade. Trying to guess at the crop factor of future cameras when buying EF lenses is bad enough, after all. Canon certainly cares that people are happy with their current systems - but let's be realistic, us consumers have no leverage to get more features for old cameras. The T1i is an old camera - more to the point an old cheap camera, unlike the 5D Mark II which is an even older camera, but one which occupies an important slot in the EOS lineup. Many folks would have loved 30FPS 1080p on the T1i: Maybe it's possible, maybe it isn't. Standardized frame rates for the 720p mode should be possible as they've been introduced on other cameras. No matter - it's not happening. I don't see a "REBEL TEAM" out there cheerleading the camera's success, and I don't see professional demand for better video on it either. Same with microadjustment. In any case, I don't feel like spending too much effort on the previous generation of cameras, but rather try to advocate for the future of the EOS series. I opine in the post above that eventually microadjustment may become a must for any camera to be viewed seriously - especially as Canon's DSLRs are all becoming seen as a "specialist" breed.
Yes, eventually we will probably be arguing for microadjustment (perhaps multiple microadjustment points per lens! Imagine!) on every model of DSLR introduced. And eventually it may be standard (unless Canon either finds a way to eliminate the need for it, or finds a way to make the EF lens mount an everyday camera again so that people who just want to point and shoot start buying DSLRs, which role the compacts seem to have taken on - the reverse of the situation during the releases of all those wacky Kodak formats from the 1960s onward not managing to budge 35mm dominance).
Incidentally, I didn't realize when I wrote that previous post how big the pricing gap is between models. I think it strengthens my argument. There's no way that not including microadjustment in the 60D is going to drive people up to the 7D - or in that, almost as implausibly, by excluding it they give photographers a convincing reason to ditch the 7D. The 7D is half again as expensive as the 60D, body only, so it's not just a matter of people paying $100 or even $300 to get a better system. From the 60D, it's a closer step down to the T2i than up to the 7D. I think that Canon would like to have a more gradual step between the T2i and the 7D, but excluding useful features only makes the gap seem wider. The similarity between the 50D and T1i wasn't helpful either; 50D had a lot of advanced features but didn't receive enough attention for them - like the pentaprism - when the T1i could win over headline features like a movie mode - in retrospect a very primitive one.
Looking at Canon's DSLRs lineup it's noteworthy how some cameras haven't been listed at a lower price since their launches - 7D surely. The T1i, being a cheap camera with no buzz anymore, got its price drop a while back. The $100 more for the T2i reflects that the T1i is the superseded model.
Perhaps this represents a pessimistic view of the market for Canon, or maybe just a realistic one. Or, maybe, it's a bit of market manipulation - taking a respected brand, cheapening the fundamental construction while adding a host of headline features, and then reintroducing the feature set in a new line that is much more expensive. To Canon's credit, the headline features are more likely to be relevant to amateurs and some even to professionals - pentaprism versus tiltable LCD, take your pick [EDIT: 60D has a pentaprism as well, thanks Mark - my point still is valid in that the 7D has the better pentaprism, but it is a smaller difference than I was suggesting]; 7D owners will start clamoring for a swinger in the 7D's replacement too. How many DSLR filmmakers use the viewfinder? Better HDMI output is the more obvious step. To be sure, I didn't want this to turn into a monologue about planned obsolescence taken straight from Death of a Salesman, but it's fairly clear what's happened here. Canon wanted to cheapen the DSLR line and hoped nobody would notice (or, if they noticed, not care enough to do something about it).
To be fair to Canon, there is a price savings for the 60D commensurate with the lost features, and it's still a big step up from the 550D. Instead of leaving a gap below the 7D, it is also a $200 upgrade in build over the Txi / 5x0D series cameras, assuming you won't miss the pentaprism or the magnesium body (wha?), and at this price it lets more people in the door than the 50D did. But none of the features really is a definite sell to me, though many are very nice and useful. Microadjustment, though it seems small, would be one. Though for many people it's a non-issue, I think that if you're going to be serious about video, heat buildup is the elephant in the room and there ought to be more models with a magnesium body, not less. Hence the gap.
Canon surely can count on lots of people getting the 60D, but for people with memory about previous series upgrades, the $400 more for the 7D over the 50D's introductory price (which is now a $600 gap) is forcing many photographers into a lower bracket - sticking with the x0 series will surprise some photographers as how much has changed compared to the previous model, for good and ill. Some of it's more functional for the type of shooting many people utilize today - pentamirror and tiltable screen versus pentaprism and a fixed screen - but certainly this shakeup has left many people feeling more uncertain than before when selecting their next model of DSLR.
I don't get the few posts that are openly hostile to attempts to make the platform more flexible for everyone. There is no downside for anybody in the EOS user community when people politely but firmly lay out the ground rules of what they will buy and what they won't. Canon is not going to suddenly de-spec a future release (for example) or act out of spite.
But on the 500D - well, it's an odd thing to bring up with low-light performance being a sore spot for me with the T1i. I don't like getting suckered into the update cycle (the T2i was announced before the T1i was a year old!), and I don't get terribly excited over incremental sensor and CPU changes. But the set of features - body and operative - should still be there whenever you or I decide to upgrade. Trying to guess at the crop factor of future cameras when buying EF lenses is bad enough, after all. Canon certainly cares that people are happy with their current systems - but let's be realistic, us consumers have no leverage to get more features for old cameras. The T1i is an old camera - more to the point an old cheap camera, unlike the 5D Mark II which is an even older camera, but one which occupies an important slot in the EOS lineup. Many folks would have loved 30FPS 1080p on the T1i: Maybe it's possible, maybe it isn't. Standardized frame rates for the 720p mode should be possible as they've been introduced on other cameras. No matter - it's not happening. I don't see a "REBEL TEAM" out there cheerleading the camera's success, and I don't see professional demand for better video on it either. Same with microadjustment. In any case, I don't feel like spending too much effort on the previous generation of cameras, but rather try to advocate for the future of the EOS series. I opine in the post above that eventually microadjustment may become a must for any camera to be viewed seriously - especially as Canon's DSLRs are all becoming seen as a "specialist" breed.
Yes, eventually we will probably be arguing for microadjustment (perhaps multiple microadjustment points per lens! Imagine!) on every model of DSLR introduced. And eventually it may be standard (unless Canon either finds a way to eliminate the need for it, or finds a way to make the EF lens mount an everyday camera again so that people who just want to point and shoot start buying DSLRs, which role the compacts seem to have taken on - the reverse of the situation during the releases of all those wacky Kodak formats from the 1960s onward not managing to budge 35mm dominance).
Incidentally, I didn't realize when I wrote that previous post how big the pricing gap is between models. I think it strengthens my argument. There's no way that not including microadjustment in the 60D is going to drive people up to the 7D - or in that, almost as implausibly, by excluding it they give photographers a convincing reason to ditch the 7D. The 7D is half again as expensive as the 60D, body only, so it's not just a matter of people paying $100 or even $300 to get a better system. From the 60D, it's a closer step down to the T2i than up to the 7D. I think that Canon would like to have a more gradual step between the T2i and the 7D, but excluding useful features only makes the gap seem wider. The similarity between the 50D and T1i wasn't helpful either; 50D had a lot of advanced features but didn't receive enough attention for them - like the pentaprism - when the T1i could win over headline features like a movie mode - in retrospect a very primitive one.
Looking at Canon's DSLRs lineup it's noteworthy how some cameras haven't been listed at a lower price since their launches - 7D surely. The T1i, being a cheap camera with no buzz anymore, got its price drop a while back. The $100 more for the T2i reflects that the T1i is the superseded model.
Perhaps this represents a pessimistic view of the market for Canon, or maybe just a realistic one. Or, maybe, it's a bit of market manipulation - taking a respected brand, cheapening the fundamental construction while adding a host of headline features, and then reintroducing the feature set in a new line that is much more expensive. To Canon's credit, the headline features are more likely to be relevant to amateurs and some even to professionals - pentaprism versus tiltable LCD, take your pick [EDIT: 60D has a pentaprism as well, thanks Mark - my point still is valid in that the 7D has the better pentaprism, but it is a smaller difference than I was suggesting]; 7D owners will start clamoring for a swinger in the 7D's replacement too. How many DSLR filmmakers use the viewfinder? Better HDMI output is the more obvious step. To be sure, I didn't want this to turn into a monologue about planned obsolescence taken straight from Death of a Salesman, but it's fairly clear what's happened here. Canon wanted to cheapen the DSLR line and hoped nobody would notice (or, if they noticed, not care enough to do something about it).
To be fair to Canon, there is a price savings for the 60D commensurate with the lost features, and it's still a big step up from the 550D. Instead of leaving a gap below the 7D, it is also a $200 upgrade in build over the Txi / 5x0D series cameras, assuming you won't miss the pentaprism or the magnesium body (wha?), and at this price it lets more people in the door than the 50D did. But none of the features really is a definite sell to me, though many are very nice and useful. Microadjustment, though it seems small, would be one. Though for many people it's a non-issue, I think that if you're going to be serious about video, heat buildup is the elephant in the room and there ought to be more models with a magnesium body, not less. Hence the gap.
Canon surely can count on lots of people getting the 60D, but for people with memory about previous series upgrades, the $400 more for the 7D over the 50D's introductory price (which is now a $600 gap) is forcing many photographers into a lower bracket - sticking with the x0 series will surprise some photographers as how much has changed compared to the previous model, for good and ill. Some of it's more functional for the type of shooting many people utilize today - pentamirror and tiltable screen versus pentaprism and a fixed screen - but certainly this shakeup has left many people feeling more uncertain than before when selecting their next model of DSLR.
Upvote
0
Edwin Herdman said:
Hi Edwin,
I made it through your posts and I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the trade-offs between models.
The 60D has a pentaprism, just like the 50D. I'm expecting the viewfinders to be identical and this would be a noticeable improvement over the 500D (and definitely over my 1000D). The 7D has an even larger pentaprism for its 100% view.
The 60D uses the same battery as the 7D and gets more shots out of it (1100 vs 800) and this is a big improvement over the 50D battery life.
I think the cameras all have a metal frame inside. The 50D and 7D have outer magnesium alloy body panels and the other cameras have reinforced resin panels. The 60D's internal frame is aluminium rather than steel, to reduce mass I suppose. I hadn't heard of the heat dissipation factor before, but then I don't shoot video with my 50D
All the information I quoted came from the spec sheets on the Canon UK website.
Mark
Upvote
0
E
Edwin Herdman
Guest
Thanks Mark, I thought I had the 60D spec nailed down but apparently not! Thanks for checking it. I could swear I saw it had a pentamirror - but I also see that it does indeed have a pentamirror. That does make the 60D more attractive, though I note that it's not *as good* a pentaprism as the 7D's. But I personally don't mind the 96% coverage; I'm used to it. Any ol' pentaprism is good enough for me. How Canon expects us to compare cameras from the lineup when the relevant data is this specific and buried anyhow is beyond me. Then again, when every new basic camera has the opportunity to unseat the top models with some parts of the feature set, there isn't really any way for Canon to enforce sanity in the segmentation. Apparently price is supposed to be the sole factor making the decision for us, and we take whatever camera we can afford. Apologies those posts are so long - I like to get to the point but it didn't seem that trying to untangle the positioning strategy at Canon was something that could be treated properly with a pithy one-liner.
Even when not shooting video, live view is very useful for me. I use it almost as much as the viewfinder, because I use it exclusively when the TS-E is bolted on. And when it's warm out, Live View likes to kick off (and at the very least it's heating up the sensor, hurting noise characteristics). In this case, a magnesium metal frame would have better heat dissipation characteristics.
Taking another look at the specs, the 60D's price premium encompasses the magnesium chassis ($200 over the 60D if you look at the 50D's introductory price, but that was back when a dollar was still worth a dollar, right?), more autofocus points, better continuous shooting, and a better viewfinder.
Even when not shooting video, live view is very useful for me. I use it almost as much as the viewfinder, because I use it exclusively when the TS-E is bolted on. And when it's warm out, Live View likes to kick off (and at the very least it's heating up the sensor, hurting noise characteristics). In this case, a magnesium metal frame would have better heat dissipation characteristics.
Taking another look at the specs, the 60D's price premium encompasses the magnesium chassis ($200 over the 60D if you look at the 50D's introductory price, but that was back when a dollar was still worth a dollar, right?), more autofocus points, better continuous shooting, and a better viewfinder.
Upvote
0
Are ANY of the posters above, who are complaining about the lack of MA on the 60D, both in the market for the 60D and currently utilising MA in their current camera or in need of MA because they are experiencing focus accuracy problems with their current camera?
i.e. are you actually experiencing a problem?
i.e. are you actually experiencing a problem?
Upvote
0
I have a slight back focusing problem with my 20D (i cannot do anything about it due to lack of MA). I do not have problem with my 40D. I am in the market for a new camera. 60D seems a perfect fit for my usage and it is a better value, compared to T2i. I would like to see MA in it just in case.tnargs said:
Upvote
0
L
LukeS
Guest
tnargs said:
I need it for a few of my prime lens, I have a 1000D (looking to upgrade) and the focus is off on a few lens. It is the lenses not the camera because I tried the lenses on my friends 50D, had the same problem, adjusted the micro adjust feature with a focus chart then boom problem fixed. From that point on I would not buy a camera without the feature and do not want to pay $400 more for the 7D just for MA (the only extra feature on the 7D I need).
Some people do not need it and/or have never used it which is great but for the people who need it, it is a make or break feature that should be on this type of camera considering it is a zero cost feature and it's predecessor had it. I find it very disingenuous of canon to remove this feature.
Upvote
0
It seems an easy thing to 'manage the risk'. In stages.
Firstly, it is adjustable, just not by the user. It's a Canon service item.
So, if it's the body, it's a free fix under warranty.
If it's a Canon lens not focusing and lens is under warranty, see above. Send body and lens to Canon.
If Canon lens is not under warranty, cheapest option is to sell it and buy another used sample of same lens. It will most likely be fine. Or, spend a bit more, pay Canon to adjust it (camera or lens, whichever).
If it is not a Canon lens, sell it and buy another used sample of same lens. Or replace it with a Canon lens.
Simple strategies to follow, if, if, if and if, the various possible and unlikely scenarios start to cascade up for you. Most likely none of it will even be relevant.
People seem to be talking about existing lenses they own that they know to not focus properly. Sell 'em, or buy a camera specially for 'em. But why criticize a camera that isn't specially for such lenses?
Seriously, I wonder how many owners who *think* they are advanced camera geeks have made things worse by fiddling with the MA on their cameras? And don't even know it? ;D
Firstly, it is adjustable, just not by the user. It's a Canon service item.
So, if it's the body, it's a free fix under warranty.
If it's a Canon lens not focusing and lens is under warranty, see above. Send body and lens to Canon.
If Canon lens is not under warranty, cheapest option is to sell it and buy another used sample of same lens. It will most likely be fine. Or, spend a bit more, pay Canon to adjust it (camera or lens, whichever).
If it is not a Canon lens, sell it and buy another used sample of same lens. Or replace it with a Canon lens.
Simple strategies to follow, if, if, if and if, the various possible and unlikely scenarios start to cascade up for you. Most likely none of it will even be relevant.
People seem to be talking about existing lenses they own that they know to not focus properly. Sell 'em, or buy a camera specially for 'em. But why criticize a camera that isn't specially for such lenses?
Seriously, I wonder how many owners who *think* they are advanced camera geeks have made things worse by fiddling with the MA on their cameras? And don't even know it? ;D
Upvote
0
L
LukeS
Guest
tnargs said:It seems an easy thing to 'manage the risk'. In stages.
Firstly, it is adjustable, just not by the user. It's a Canon service item.
So, if it's the body, it's a free fix under warranty.
If it's a Canon lens not focusing and lens is under warranty, see above. Send body and lens to Canon.
If Canon lens is not under warranty, cheapest option is to sell it and buy another used sample of same lens. It will most likely be fine. Or, spend a bit more, pay Canon to adjust it (camera or lens, whichever).
If it is not a Canon lens, sell it and buy another used sample of same lens. Or replace it with a Canon lens.
Simple strategies to follow, if, if, if and if, the various possible and unlikely scenarios start to cascade up for you. Most likely none of it will even be relevant.
People seem to be talking about existing lenses they own that they know to not focus properly. Sell 'em, or buy a camera specially for 'em. But why criticize a camera that isn't specially for such lenses?
Seriously, I wonder how many owners who *think* they are advanced camera geeks have made things worse by fiddling with the MA on their cameras? And don't even know it? ;D
I do not understand these arguments; the simplest solution by far is just to implement AF micro adjust in the camera body.
I have a conscience so I can not just sell me lens without telling the buyer that the focus is off which will lower the value and is a huge pain to sell my equipment just to buy the same thing again.
All mass produced items have manufacture tolerances, cameras and lenses are no exception. There are plenty of lenses out there that need a tweak in the AF micro adjust that are otherwise perfectly fine. It is frustrating that people are arguing against having a extra feature in a camera body.
Upvote
0
I agree with LukeS. The easiest way to solve the body/lens mismatch is to implement Micro Adjustment. As for people that ends up messing it up. It is their problem. Also if it is messed up, they can always bring the body back to the original state ( resetting???)
Upvote
0
G
gkreis
Guest
tnargs said:
Me. I have a 40D and had to send in my 17-85mm and 10-22mm due to extreme focus issues. The 100mm was right on. I sent my 70-300mm in as well, but I am beginning to realize that is just not a great lens for action photography. I get a 30% keeper rate... ugh....
But I am starting to think I need to look to an EVIL camera for my backup camera and keep my 40D as my primary camera. I waited a long time for the 60D, but it is a bit disappointing. EVIL would also solve the problem of having a smaller camera to take on business trips. Sony has ignited that field and so perhaps the next gen will have the features that will make it appealing. I'd like a 28-100mm equivalent lens on it and it can handle the video tasks as well.
The Canon strategy of moving us all up to a 7D doesn't work for me.... Perhaps moving to a Sony or Panasonic for my backup would give me the nerve to consider a switch on my primary camera one day.
Upvote
0
E
Edwin Herdman
Guest
That would be an amazing achievement, because you set up microadjustment by locking on a test target in a well-lit space and then compare results. As I mentioned, I've heard people say that their lenses need multiple adjustments throughout the range, but you can certainly fix one end with one value. So long as people know that microadjustment for more than one focal length of a zoom may be needed, if they see better results they are getting the lens into alignment...the better results the process is intended to facilitate in the first place.tnargs said:
Yeah, I'll be avoiding that one. If you spring for the new 70-300mm L please let us know how it turns out!chrome_dude said:
Also, this is not the point; MA is a tool that should be provided across the board. Sorry, straw man argument.tnargs said:
And hell if I know, the autofocus with my 50mm f/1.4 on the T1i is so spotty that I end up manually focusing whenever I can anyway. It does seem to consistently focus wrong around infinity though.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
