Updated Canon 2016 Roadmap

[Mikehit]

Of course you don't, you expect them to be professionals and show up with professional equipment. The expectations might not be written down or verbalized but they are there.

Well I would hope that by the time they turn up to the venue you have already seen the quality of their work and hired them based on that, by which time you should be beyond caring how they got those images.
I guess you would cancel them on the spot and prefer to go without any photos at all.

And if they turned up with a 5DSR instead of 1Dx how would you feel then?

 

[Loswr]

Feed it as much as you want, you can't satiate a troll.

 

[Don Haines]

Feed it as much as you want, you can't satiate a troll.

It's like a pet.... every now and then it poops on the rug, but you keep it anyway.... perhaps because it can do amusing things like digging itself into a hole or playing dodge-ball with facts....

 

[BobG]

What happened to the reported Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS being a 2016 lens?

 

[Orangutan]

Feed it as much as you want, you can't satiate a troll.

I don't think he's trolling here, he's merely over-generalizing. (over-generalizing seems to be a major feature of Dilbert's posts) I'm an amateur, but there've been several occasions where I've been at an event with my XXD, "big" 24-105 lens, and possibly a shoe-mounted flash, and the other people just get out of my way so I can take the shot. Looking the part has advantages. For the same reasons physicians wear those silly lab coats, and lawyers wear fine suits to spew coarse logic.

We can all agree that an experienced photographer can probably do an excellent job with a Rebel and kit lens, but a pro- or semi-pro body and L-glass are likely more reliable.

 

[zim]

I seem to recall my wedding tog using a Hasselblad, bloody amateur, if only I'd known

 

[3kramd5]

I'm an amateur, but there've been several occasions where I've been at an event with my XXD, "big" 24-105 lens, and possibly a shoe-mounted flash, and the other people just get out of my way so I can take the shot. Looking the part has advantages.

Hell, at most concerts I attend, "professional cameras" are not permitted without a press pass, and the distinction made is typically whether the lens is removable. I'd LOVE if they'd adopt the Dilbert principal.

Yes. There are always "exceptions to the rule"

So, for the record, what is the rule? To be considered a "professional photographer," one must use a full-sized SLR body?

 

[Loswr]

Yes. There are always "exceptions to the rule"

So, for the record, what is the rule? To be considered a "professional photographer," one must use a full-sized SLR body?

Dilbert was quite specific – a 1-series Canon or D# series from Nikon is a prerequisite to be considered a 'professional wedding photographer'. Those using a 5-series Canon or a D8x0 Nikon are not professionals and are bilking their clients as a result. Skill, experience an portfolio are irrelevant. In dilbertland, I qualify as a professional wedding photographer. Thank goodness I'll never visit that fantasyland.

 

[Eldar]

God, you people must have a lot of time to kill. Don´t you ever get bored with this childish ranting, harassment and word splitting?

Every single thread ends up in a meaningless twisting and distortion of what someone has said, into something they never intended. Dilbert´s posts are not always the best, but your ranting and harassment is a lot worse. A 10-year old understands the meaning of what was said, but apparently not a bunch of grown men.

Get a life!

 

[j-nord]

God, you people must have a lot of time to kill. Don´t you ever get bored with this childish ranting, harassment and word splitting?

Every single thread ends up in a meaningless twisting and distortion of what someone has said, into something they never intended. Dilbert´s posts are not always the best, but your ranting and harassment is a lot worse. A 10-year old understands the meaning of what was said, but apparently not a bunch of grown men.

Get a life!

I hope you realize you are only feeding the trolls and off topic banter.

 

[unfocused]

...Every single thread ends up in a meaningless twisting and distortion of what someone has said, into something they never intended. Dilbert´s posts are not always the best, but your ranting and harassment is a lot worse...

Pretty good advice. I try to resist Dilbert's deliberate inanity, but frequently fail. I hope to get better.

 

[unfocused]

Okay, I know I'm violating my own resolution (and just minutes after making it). So, I promise to do better after adding this one comment.

Did anyone else notice the irony of our biggest Sony fan arguing in favor of oversize "professional-looking" cameras? Certainly no photographer carrying those puny little Sonys could be a professional.

Okay, I'm going to really, really, try to be better.

 

[unfocused]

What happened to the reported Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS being a 2016 lens?

Many believe the 200-600 f4.5-5.6 is a unicorn. Fun to fantasize about, but unlikely to ever be seen in the wild. (At least not for under $2,500)

 

[privatebydesign]

Maybe my point was too subtle before.

Anybody that tries to pigeonhole the skill level or abilities of an individual photographer by the equipment they appear to be using is either an uninformed member of the public or a wannabe photographer forum addict. There is no correlation.

Just today we have the story of an accredited pro photographer with NASA access who is 16 years old and shooting with an entry level D3300 and kit lens ($359.95 without grip). If I was to start a thread here on what camera should I use to take close up shots of a rocket launch, I doubt many here would suggest the D3300! It would be "you need durability", "weather sealing", "1 series", blah blah blah, meanwhile there is a 16 year old kid out there doing it with a Rebel equivalent.............

 

[3kramd5]

A 10-year old understands the meaning of what was said

I can only guess what the meaning was because was said was so far afield. Maybe that's because my brain is less developed than that of a 10-year old, but maybe it's because he's so dug in.

I initially thought he was joking (especially considering "Is what you're telling that it isn't necessary for a professional wedding photographer to use a Canon DSLR?"), and, while I could assume he was generalizing about the appearance of a professional photographer (which to me, for whatever reason) conjures up an image of Jimmy Olsen from the Superman films,

that assumption was invalidated by his asking me personally if I'd hire someone based on what they say they'll be using.

 

[ahsanford]

What happened to the reported Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS being a 2016 lens?

Many believe the 200-600 f4.5-5.6 is a unicorn. Fun to fantasize about, but unlikely to ever be seen in the wild. (At least not for under $2,500)

Will it happen? Yes. That lens has some nasty headwinds -- competitors' very low prices, Canon insisting EF to be f/5.6 at the slowest, the rumor saying 600mm and not a far more reasonable price-wise 500mm, etc. -- but Canon could make it if they were so inclined.

Will it be cheap like the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR for $1399? Unlikely, especially if it goes to 600mm. But I suppose Canon could (very uncharacteristically) give it away at cost if the D500 + 200-500 combo was stealing birders/wildlife users en masse from Canon. Anything's possible.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

What happened to the reported Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS being a 2016 lens?

Many believe the 200-600 f4.5-5.6 is a unicorn. Fun to fantasize about, but unlikely to ever be seen in the wild. (At least not for under $2,500)

Will it happen? Yes. That lens has some nasty headwinds -- competitors' very low prices, Canon insisting EF to be f/5.6 at the slowest, the rumor saying 600mm and not a far more reasonable price-wise 500mm, etc. -- but Canon could make it if they were so inclined.

Will it be cheap like the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR for $1399? Unlikely, especially if it goes to 600mm. But I suppose Canon could (very uncharacteristically) give it away at cost if the D500 + 200-500 combo was stealing birders/wildlife users en masse from Canon. Anything's possible.

- A

D500 $2,995.95
200-500 $1,396.95
Total $4392.90

7D MkII $1,349.00
100-400 MkII $2,099.00
Total $3448.00

I doubt if those numbers are going to push Canon into doing anything. If anybody gets hung up on 500 is better than 400 then a smart salesman would sell them any of the third party 150-600's and make more commission anyway (and save them a ton on the Canon deal).

 

[ahsanford]

D500 $2,995.95
200-500 $1,396.95
Total $4392.90

7D MkII $1,349.00
100-400 MkII $2,099.00
Total $3448.00

I doubt if those numbers are going to push Canon into doing anything. If anybody gets hung up on 500 is better than 400 then a smart salesman would sell them any of the third party 150-600's and make more commission anyway (and save them a ton on the Canon deal).

D500 costs $1,995, not $2,995 (at least in the US), and 500mm > 400mm, and that's a big deal for the reach-obsessed.

I'm not singing the praises of the Nikon by any stretch, but Canon isn't exactly considering an inexpensive superzoom because Tamron and Sigma are making money on them. They are considering one because a first party offering from Nikon represents (to a small degree) a threat to steal an entire user group from Canon: amateur/starting wildlife and birding folks.

Presently, the D500 + 200-500 is a shade cheaper than the 7D2 + 100-400, and the Nikon folks have the bump of a new rig with fancy tech on it (better sensor, tilty-flippy, 4K, epic buffer, etc.) as the bright shiny light to draw people. Again, I'm not going out to buy one, but right now, Nikon has arrows in the quiver for this segment that Canon does not.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

D500 $2,995.95
200-500 $1,396.95
Total $4392.90

7D MkII $1,349.00
100-400 MkII $2,099.00
Total $3448.00

I doubt if those numbers are going to push Canon into doing anything. If anybody gets hung up on 500 is better than 400 then a smart salesman would sell them any of the third party 150-600's and make more commission anyway (and save them a ton on the Canon deal).

D500 costs $1,995, not $2,995 (at least in the US), and 500mm > 400mm, and that's a big deal for the reach-obsessed.

I'm not singing the praises of the Nikon by any stretch, but Canon isn't exactly considering an inexpensive superzoom because Tamron and Sigma are making money on them. They are considering one because a first party offering from Nikon represents (to a small degree) a threat to steal an entire user group from Canon: amateur/starting wildlife and birding folks.

Presently, the D500 + 200-500 is a shade cheaper than the 7D2 + 100-400, and the Nikon folks have the bump of a new rig with fancy tech on it (better sensor, tilty-flippy, 4K, epic buffer, etc.) as the bright shiny light to draw people. Again, I'm not going out to buy one, but right now, Nikon has arrows in the quiver for this segment that Canon does not.

- A

My mistake, sorry. DOH!

You'd have to be mad to pay more for a 7D MkII and 100-400 than a D500 and 200-500.

How do you know "Canon is considering an inexpensive superzoom"? If Canon worked the way half the people here think they work, in response to something Nikon puts out, they'd be in a worse financial mess than Nikon themselves are. Nikon is not the first or second 'threat', changing markets and costs are far more important to Canon, vastly so, than anything Nikon does.

if I were a market analyst I'd advise Canon to do the opposite of pretty much anything Nikon does.

 

[et31]

Obviously Yoichi Okamoto was the worst photographer in the world because he used a silly SLR with manual focus. There was no way that he was able to capture the moment. Gasp! How could he have been so careless? :
So many 21st century photographers in an infant DSLR era are 1/2 the photographers of the giants of the past.
Photo below: Yoichi is not using a Canon 1Dx Mark II or a Nikon D5. For shame. ??? : ;D

A true photographer knows the rules of lighting and composition like second nature without having to rely on the "playback" image or automatic modes, in addition to having the eye, skill, ability to deliver!

Yes, forum trolls, there are plenty of other factors and variables in photography to consider. But my point is that to make a claim that only certain types of events can be shot with a certain class of DSLR cameras is ludicrous. We are living in a spoiled generation!