Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: DAV33 on April 18, 2010, 08:40:21 pm
-
I’m seriously beginning to wonder if the Canon shouldn’t stop whatever it is that they are doing and make 6-Sigma training an immediate urgent priority for the company. I just recently purchased a brand new Canon 16-35 mm f 2.8 LII lens from B & H and could not believe how such a product possibly leave the factory—apparently the lens line doesn’t even have a final optical inspection… Not only is the focus of this copy worse near the edge of the field when set to 20 mm compared to the two-generations-old Canon 20-35 mm f 2.8L also set to 20 mm, but it is worse in the center is well and varies across the field! See the accompanying photos to verify this for your self.
Some might say this is probably just isolated incident, but is it? Let’s look at the attitude of the company. Photographers, including many professionals, have been asking Canon to implement a one-button-push mirror-up function since the film EOS-1. Certainly, with the latest EOS cameras, implementing this is probably no more than several lines of code. Yet Canon for some unknown reason simply refuses to honor its customers’ requests. This seems to reflect an attitude that I would characterize as arrogance or at least one that does not place customer satisfaction as a primary consideration in its business operations. But I think that this attitude is reflected in other things that have happen with the Canon camera line as well.
There is the buy now infamous auto focus the issue with the EOS 1D MKIII & EOS 1DS MKIII that was never fully resolved after several firmware upgrades. In this case, the “let’s get it out there, and we’ll fix it later” business model didn’t work. It caused many sports photographers to either revert to their 1D MKII or switch to Nikon! Brilliant marketing plan???
But there is more. The 5D MKII black dot problem along with its outdated autofocus system; the 7D ghosting problem along with an autofocus system that doesn’t match the low light capability of the camera; recent cameras that provide 1080P video capability but lack the needed tilting viewing screens available on much cheaper digicams to make them usable.
As a long time Canon user, I am saddened to see the company falling behind in technical innovation, dropping the quality ball, ignoring customer satisfaction, and designing products that only “do part of the job”, as with the incomplete live view/video implementation. Canon’s current path does little to inspire confidence in its products, especially ones new to arrive on the market. But I hope that someone there in Japan grabs hold of the company and puts it on the right track before it is too late…
Addendum:
I have added two additional crops that I hope will make the comparison easier. The new images are “lower-left” and “center” from left to right, respectively. I believe they clearly illustrate the significant lack of resolution in sample of the 16-35mm L II that I tested at 20mm, f-2.8.
-
I’m seriously beginning to wonder if the Canon shouldn’t stop whatever it is that they are doing and make 6-Sigma training an immediate urgent priority for the company. I just recently purchased a brand new Canon 16-35 mm f 2.8 LII lens from B & H and could not believe how such a product possibly leave the factory—apparently the lens line doesn’t even have a final optical inspection… Not only is the focus of this copy worse near the edge of the field when set to 20 mm compared to the two-generations-old Canon 20-35 mm f 2.8L also set to 20 mm, but it is worse in the center is well and varies across the field! See the accompanying photos to verify this for your self.
Some might say this is probably just isolated incident, but is it? Let’s look at the attitude of the company. Photographers, including many professionals, have been asking Canon to implement a one-button-push mirror-up function since the film EOS-1. Certainly, with the latest EOS cameras, implementing this is probably no more than several lines of code. Yet Canon for some unknown reason simply refuses to honor its customers’ requests. This seems to reflect an attitude that I would characterize as arrogance or at least one that does not place customer satisfaction as a primary consideration in its business operations. But I think that this attitude is reflected in other things that have happen with the Canon camera line as well.
There is the buy now infamous auto focus the issue with the EOS 1D MKIII & EOS 1DS MKIII that was never fully resolved after several firmware upgrades. In this case, the “let’s get it out there, and we’ll fix it later” business model didn’t work. It caused many sports photographers to either revert to their 1D MKII or switch to Nikon! Brilliant marketing plan???
But there is more. The 5D MKII black dot problem along with its outdated autofocus system; the 7D ghosting problem along with an autofocus system that doesn’t match the low light capability of the camera; recent cameras that provide 1080P video capability but lack the needed tilting viewing screens available on much cheaper digicams to make them usable.
As a long time Canon user, I am saddened to see the company falling behind in technical innovation, dropping the quality ball, ignoring customer satisfaction, and designing products that only “do part of the job”, as with the incomplete live view/video implementation. Canon’s current path does little to inspire confidence in its products, especially ones new to arrive on the market. But I hope that someone there in Japan grabs hold of the company and puts it on the right track before it is too late…
Looking at your images @2.8, I think this is what to expect of a 16-35 zoom wide open at the corners, you might even have a good sample !
You have to go primes, but I doubt that the 20mm Canon prime would be any better at the corners wide open.
I have no idea why people still rave about a dedicated mirror lock up button. I use mirror lock up all the time and find it VERY easy to use the menu on 1DsMK3 to swift back and forth, on the 5DII you even have custom functions C1-C3 you can dedicate as a mirror lock up.
I think with your anger towards Canon you should try to swift to a competitor - perhaps only to find out other disadvantages - there is simply no perfect system out there.
cheer up
TES
-
DAV33
You are absolutely right, and so is the person who replied to you. The problem is across the board - just think Toyota or Mercedes or Jaguar if you imagined reputation was some sort of guarantee and I have recently had the same horror story with Nikkors too, after spending decades with them without a problem associated with QC.
What we are all seeing is a drift out of company pride into corporate greed.
That is all there is to it.
Rob C
-
Looking at your images @2.8, I think this is what to expect of a 16-35 zoom wide open at the corners, you might even have a good sample !
You have to go primes, but I doubt that the 20mm Canon prime would be any better at the corners wide open.
I have no idea why people still rave about a dedicated mirror lock up button. I use mirror lock up all the time and find it VERY easy to use the menu on 1DsMK3 to swift back and forth, on the 5DII you even have custom functions C1-C3 you can dedicate as a mirror lock up.
I think with your anger towards Canon you should try to swift to a competitor - perhaps only to find out other disadvantages - there is simply no perfect system out there.
cheer up
TES
HI TES
I have added a third file to my post that may make my point easier to see. The old 20-35mm is worse in the extreme corners, but as you move toward the right in each image the “old” lens sharpness improves dramatically while the “brand new” 16 – 35mm II [operating near its sweet spot at 20mm according to published lens reports] actually gets worse as you look toward the upper right. In any case, the sample I got is unacceptably soft for my purposes and can’t match the performance of the “old” lens when each is stopped down to f-11!
I am not “angry” with Canon, but, rather, sorry to see what once was the market leader in innovation now lagging behind with its latest DSLR product launches plagued by quality issues that just shouldn’t exist for a premier world class company.
-
HI TES
I have added a third file to my post that may make my point easier to see. The old 20-35mm is worse in the extreme corners, but as you move toward the right in each image the “old” lens sharpness improves dramatically while the “brand new” 16 – 35mm II [operating near its sweet spot at 20mm according to published lens reports] actually gets worse as you look toward the upper right. In any case, the sample I got is unacceptably soft for my purposes and can’t match the performance of the “old” lens when each is stopped down to f-11!
I am not “angry” with Canon, but, rather, sorry to see what once was the market leader in innovation now lagging behind with its latest DSLR product launches plagued by quality issues that just shouldn’t exist for a premier world class company.
It is a zoom lens. As a previous respondant stated you would need to go to a prime and stop down a couple of stops from full aperture. There are limits in all lens designs. That Canon lens is excellent but there are normal tolerances in lenses and there will be differences between samples. I and a fellow photographer both have that particular lens and find that it has good corner to corner sharpness stopped down to f16 doing landscapes.
The ability to view images at 100% is a curse as well as being a positive advantage. 50% of my old Hasselblad 6 x 6cm shots are soft but print fine.
John
John
-
I’m seriously beginning to wonder if the Canon shouldn’t stop whatever it is that they are doing and make 6-Sigma training an immediate urgent priority for the company. I just recently purchased a brand new Canon 16-35 mm f 2.8 LII lens from B & H and could not believe how such a product possibly leave the factory—apparently the lens line doesn’t even have a final optical inspection… Not only is the focus of this copy worse near the edge of the field when set to 20 mm compared to the two-generations-old Canon 20-35 mm f 2.8L also set to 20 mm, but it is worse in the center is well and varies across the field! See the accompanying photos to verify this for your self.
Some might say this is probably just isolated incident, but is it? Let’s look at the attitude of the company. Photographers, including many professionals, have been asking Canon to implement a one-button-push mirror-up function since the film EOS-1. Certainly, with the latest EOS cameras, implementing this is probably no more than several lines of code. Yet Canon for some unknown reason simply refuses to honor its customers’ requests. This seems to reflect an attitude that I would characterize as arrogance or at least one that does not place customer satisfaction as a primary consideration in its business operations. But I think that this attitude is reflected in other things that have happen with the Canon camera line as well.
There is the buy now infamous auto focus the issue with the EOS 1D MKIII & EOS 1DS MKIII that was never fully resolved after several firmware upgrades. In this case, the “let’s get it out there, and we’ll fix it later” business model didn’t work. It caused many sports photographers to either revert to their 1D MKII or switch to Nikon! Brilliant marketing plan???
But there is more. The 5D MKII black dot problem along with its outdated autofocus system; the 7D ghosting problem along with an autofocus system that doesn’t match the low light capability of the camera; recent cameras that provide 1080P video capability but lack the needed tilting viewing screens available on much cheaper digicams to make them usable.
As a long time Canon user, I am saddened to see the company falling behind in technical innovation, dropping the quality ball, ignoring customer satisfaction, and designing products that only “do part of the job”, as with the incomplete live view/video implementation. Canon’s current path does little to inspire confidence in its products, especially ones new to arrive on the market. But I hope that someone there in Japan grabs hold of the company and puts it on the right track before it is too late…
Addendum:
I have added two additional crops that I hope will make the comparison easier. The new images are “lower-left” and “center” from left to right, respectively. I believe they clearly illustrate the significant lack of resolution in sample of the 16-35mm L II that I tested at 20mm, f-2.8.
Rubbish isn't it. I tried one and was horror struck at the vignetting as well as the overall softness. So I bought a 35mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4 mkII, the difference is huge compared to the zoom (the 35mm is so sharp I'm seeing moire which I've not really seen with Canon). I just need to get a decent superwide sorted. I am actually wondering about a Leica M9 and that three in one lens that does 16mm 18mm and 21mm, the cost would be about £7k, but £7k for something that does what it should or a lot less for constant disappointment, that is the question.
Look at Toyota with their problems, only admitted to when pushed, Canon & Nikon deny knowledge of any problem until they can announce a cure. I think it must be a Japanese way of doing business.
If you need a Canon zoom look at the 17-40mm, it to will disappoint photographically because it isn't much different to the 16 - 35mm but it's a lot cheaper.
Kevin.
-
Rubbish isn't it. I tried one and was horror struck at the vignetting as well as the overall softness. So I bought a 35mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4 mkII, the difference is huge compared to the zoom (the 35mm is so sharp I'm seeing moire which I've not really seen with Canon). I just need to get a decent superwide sorted. I am actually wondering about a Leica M9 and that three in one lens that does 16mm 18mm and 21mm, the cost would be about £7k, but £7k for something that does what it should or a lot less for constant disappointment, that is the question.
Look at Toyota with their problems, only admitted to when pushed, Canon & Nikon deny knowledge of any problem until they can announce a cure. I think it must be a Japanese way of doing business.
If you need a Canon zoom look at the 17-40mm, it to will disappoint photographically because it isn't much different to the 16 - 35mm but it's a lot cheaper.
Kevin.
........... The problem with the Canon superwides is highlighted by the fact that Nikon produce a stunning superwide zoom, so the excuse "what do you expect from a zoom" does not hold up anymore, because it can easily be answered by a nod towards the Nikon.
Kevin.
-
Well, the super duper Nikkor wide zoom may be the dog's bollocks or not, I haven't tried one, but not the damn 24-70/2.8 G! Mine sucked at the wide end bigtime. The super duper doesn't even allow a filter - all that cash/glass at risk scares the pants off me. Imagine shooting volcanoes! Or not wanting to shoot volcanoes but discovering that they travel well.
Rob C
-
It is a zoom lens. As a previous respondant stated you would need to go to a prime and stop down a couple of stops from full aperture. There are limits in all lens designs. That Canon lens is excellent but there are normal tolerances in lenses and there will be differences between samples. I and a fellow photographer both have that particular lens and find that it has good corner to corner sharpness stopped down to f16 doing landscapes.
The ability to view images at 100% is a curse as well as being a positive advantage. 50% of my old Hasselblad 6 x 6cm shots are soft but print fine.
John
John
Well here's the thing John, the original 1987 20-35mm f-2.8L AFD lens probably sold for about half of what the new 16-35mm f2.8LII does. If you look at the MTF charts that I added to my original post, you will see that there is no way that the old lens at 20mm could possibly out resolve the new lens even at 16mm near the corners if, A/ canon isn’t making up the MTF charts; B/ my copy of the new lens was good. But the images show the opposite, both near the edge and at the center—hardly what I expected based on published reviews, 20 some years of progress in optical science, and some $1450 in cash!
DAV33
-
DAV33:
You have a bad (very bad) copy of the lens. Send it back and get another.
I have this lens, I use it most often between 19mm and 21mm, and that's the focal length it really shines at. Yes, you will have some corner softness when shooting wide open, but it should not be nearly as soft as your examples. And the center on mine is razor sharp, even wide open.
Regarding the dedicated MLU button, the 5DMkII has one. Unfortunately, they named it the "Live View" button. But I can assure you, if you press it, the mirror locks up.
-
The super duper doesn't even allow a filter - all that cash/glass at risk scares the pants off me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMX5p9Iwx3Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMX5p9Iwx3Y)
-
DAV33:
You have a bad (very bad) copy of the lens. Send it back and get another.
I have this lens, I use it most often between 19mm and 21mm, and that's the focal length it really shines at. Yes, you will have some corner softness when shooting wide open, but it should not be nearly as soft as your examples. And the center on mine is razor sharp, even wide open.
Regarding the dedicated MLU button, the 5DMkII has one. Unfortunately, they named it the "Live View" button. But I can assure you, if you press it, the mirror locks up.
Hi Tokengirl
Thanks for the info. Yes it went back & I am awaiting a fresh copy. The old 20-35 is pretty sharp for its age though, but does suffer from CA & distortion. Also, thanks for the 5DII info. I was temped to buy one, but was put off by the older autofocus design. I sometimes need fast continuous AF,
DAV33
-
Well, the super duper Nikkor wide zoom may be the dog's bollocks or not, I haven't tried one, but not the damn 24-70/2.8 G! Mine sucked at the wide end bigtime. The super duper doesn't even allow a filter - all that cash/glass at risk scares the pants off me. Imagine shooting volcanoes! Or not wanting to shoot volcanoes but discovering that they travel well.
Rob C
I moved from Nikon (Kodak SLR/n) to Canon in general I think Canon have the better lenses in my experience, I was not impressed with the 70 -200mm f2.8 or the 28 - 70mm f2.8 of Nikon. I can't complain about the quality Canon primes they are as sharp as anything I have ever used as is my 70 - 200 mm mkI IS (soft at the 70 mm end though). Since my camera had a couple of trips to Canon to sort the focus out and I microadjusted everything I can't complain about focus. I was shooting a cross country horse competition on Sunday, I don't think it missed a shot, even fast sequences. Needless to say you can have the best lenses but if something else is out they are worthless.
To get a full range of the best lenses you probably need to run two or more camera systems.I'm slightly tempted with the M9 and some Leica wide lenses.
Kevin.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMX5p9Iwx3Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMX5p9Iwx3Y)
Interesting link and ingenious solution; better keep those filters pretty damn clean, though! However, I doubt that another zoom will ever play a part in my experience again.
Rob C
-
DAV33:
You have a bad (very bad) copy of the lens. Send it back and get another.
I have this lens, I use it most often between 19mm and 21mm, and that's the focal length it really shines at. Yes, you will have some corner softness when shooting wide open, but it should not be nearly as soft as your examples. And the center on mine is razor sharp, even wide open.
Regarding the dedicated MLU button, the 5DMkII has one. Unfortunately, they named it the "Live View" button. But I can assure you, if you press it, the mirror locks up.
Lets hope so, my feeling is that you have a good (very god) copy of this lens if you dont have similar softness full open. My guess is that DAV33 just have a normal one.
I handpicked mine after testing 6 copies, and it is only slightly better that what the OP shows full open. Mine is better in the center but similar at the corners.
Yes it went back & I am awaiting a fresh copy.
Also, thanks for the 5DII info. I was temped to buy one, but was put off by the older autofocus design. I sometimes need fast continuous AF,
I hope you get a better copy.
The AF on a 5DII is not like on a 1Ds, but is just fine for the camera, remember you can micro adjust your lenses.
Cheers
TES
-
But there is more. The 5D MKII black dot problem along with its outdated autofocus system; the 7D ghosting problem along with an autofocus system that doesn’t match the low light capability of the camera; recent cameras that provide 1080P video capability but lack the needed tilting viewing screens available on much cheaper digicams to make them usable.
I did not want to address your whole post, as I do not have a copy of the lens you described, but it seems like in your frustration over getting a bad copy of a particular lens (that most people really like) you're incessant crying about it has gotten you to say some pretty incredible things.
The 5D Mark II, when it came out, was simply a breakthrough camera for its class. By a country mile. Its video capabilities were also revolutionary in its class.
The 7D is another camera that stands out head-n-shoulders over the competition in its class. Better resolution, low-light capability, more customizable features, you name it, than any camera in its class ... including THE best video offered at current writing for any SLR ... and it yet the 7D is less expensive than its competition. Yet despite all the wonderful features in the relatively new 7D, you cry about two little things. I am sorry, but this is just lame.
Take a look at the competition in its class, and you will see there is even more to cry about. Then wipe your tears away and accept the fact that nothing is perfect in this world, but realize that some of the cameras you have mentioned are pretty flippn' close to perfection, for their class.
As a long time Canon user, I am saddened to see the company falling behind in technical innovation, dropping the quality ball, ignoring customer satisfaction, and designing products that only “do part of the job”, as with the incomplete live view/video implementation. Canon’s current path does little to inspire confidence in its products, especially ones new to arrive on the market. But I hope that someone there in Japan grabs hold of the company and puts it on the right track before it is too late…
How do you figure Canon has fallen behind?
Canon invented the FF digital camera; everyone else copied them. Canon invented image stabilization in its lenses; everyone else copied them. Canon invended HD video in a camera; everyone else is copying them. Now, Canon has stepped-up with a second-generation image stabilization technology that (you watch) other companies will begin copying.
Sure, it's true, Nikon has some lenses that are better in their class than the Canon. Yes, Nikon's low-light capability is an advantage in certain contexts over the Canon. I have read some reviews where even the Sony has certain advantages in some (very limited) respects. This is to be expected in a world where other vendors are trying to establish themselves.
But, make no mistake, Canon is still leading these companies in most respects, and the other companies are the ones following and copying that leadership in most respects. I see people complaining about the limitations of these other cameras (and lenses) also, and that is because (again) nothing is perfect. But with the technology today it is pretty darn close.
Anyone can understand a person becoming frustrated by getting a bad copy of a lens, but all of this melodrama about Canon's "current path" needing to be salvaged "before it's too late" is ridiculous. If you wipe away your tears for a moment, so you can see straight, it will become perfectly evident to you that Canon's current path is still in the lead in most respects, and it shows a company that provides more overall technological advancements-per-year, more camera choices, more lens choices ... most of which are equal to or better than the competition in quality ... while being less expensive than the competition also.
If some of the other companies provide a few of their own advantages, that is to be expected, they couldn't survive if there was not a single advantage they offered. Still, the overall leadership is clearly not with Sony, and it sure as heck isn't with Pentax or Olympus, and it isn't even with Nikon. If you take a look with 20-20 vision, Canon is not in any peril of getting de-railed, LOL, they remain very firmly the industry leader in most every respect, and that is because the benefits they offer their customers (in the number of choices available, in the volume of continual technical innovations, all brought to you at an overall less expense) is unmatched in the industry.
There is nothing wrong with complaining about your particular problem, but just keep the complaining real and leave the melodrama for your wife or children.
Jack
.
-
I would possibly argue that Canon's success in the last decade is the problem, and they may be resting on their laurels a bit. The 5Dii's shadow banding at low ISO shouldn't not be in a camera in its price range...or any price range, for that matter. The build quality isn't exactly great, either, although it looks like it improved a bit in the 7D. It's been a few years since Canon was unquestionably building the best cameras and lenses, and their competition has been playing on equal or better ground for a couple of years.
p.s. The Contax N was the first fullframe digital.
-
Interesting link and ingenious solution; better keep those filters pretty damn clean, though! However, I doubt that another zoom will ever play a part in my experience again.
Rob C
Same here. I posted a while back about the softness of my 24-105mm L-series Canon lens - it apparently was typical in its class. I learned my lesson and won't go back to a zoom in the foreseeable future.
For the OP, I bought a Sigma 14mm f/2.8 for my wide angle needs and it's beautiful on my 450D - haven't tested it on an FF.
(http://www.harrijahkola.com/img/ireland/Ireland_-_Howth_(Harbor_II).jpg)
-
John,
Whatever works for you, but in my view:
In terms of cameras:
- The only domains where Canon has a clear lead is full HD video and to some extend price/performance ratio
- Both Nikon, Canon and Sony have already lost the low end to Panasonic 4/3 GF1,
- In terms of high end segment DSLRs Canon is currently behind Nikon both for low light and high res DSLR ,
- at least 3 years behind for low light considering that the point upgrade D3s is superior to the 1DIV and that the gap will probably further increase with the D4,
- only a few month behind now in absolute resolution since the 1d4s will probably slightly overtake the D3x after 1.5 years of clear lead
- In terms of mid range the 7D is indeed an interesting offering that is on top of its class.
In terms of lenses:
- Canon is ahead in terms of usability and range for T/S lens but the gap is much smaller than it used to be compared to Nikon,
- Canon is still ahead a bit in terms of mid range constant aperture zooms due to the lack of 24-120 f4 and 70-200 f4 at Nikon,
- Canon is still slightly ahead in terms of low light shooting but the 24mm f1.4 just released by Nikon is best in class and 35 f1.4/85 f1.4 are rumored to be out within weeks.
So all in all Canon still has an impressive line up but their positioing relative to the competition in terms of pure photography is a lot worst than it was 4 years ago. They are still in a comfortable spot in the mid segment but have lost a lot of ground both in low end and very high end.
You will indeed probably see things differently if you do both photo and video.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
John,
Whatever works for you, but in my view:
It's whatever is true in the real world and what works for most people.
In terms of cameras:
- The only domains where Canon has a clear lead is full HD video and to some extend price/performance ratio
They have both of those leads---I agree---but they also have more available options, lenses, etc.
- Both Nikon, Canon and Sony have already lost the low end to Panasonic 4/3 GF1,
That is one segment to Panasonic; yet the lion's share is still with Canon.
- In terms of high end segment DSLRs Canon is currently behind Nikon both for low light and high res DSLR ,
I agree, Nikon is ahead in these two areas.
But that does not change the fact Nikon is behind in lens options, price/performance ratio, macro availability, telephoto availability/quality, etc. ... and (now) Nikon is also lagging in the crop segment as well as HD video.
- at least 3 years behind for low light considering that the point upgrade D3s is superior to the 1DIV and that the gap will probably further increase with the D4,
- only a few month behind now in absolute resolution since the 1d4s will probably slightly overtake the D3x after 1.5 years of clear lead
Again, I agree with the low light nod and high-end camera segment going with Nikon, at the moment, but it's speculation concerning the forthcoming D4 vs. 1D4s ...
- In terms of mid range the 7D is indeed an interesting offering that is on top of its class.
Yes, the 7D is comfortably at the top of its class now.
And, not only is it at the top, but it's less expensive than the comparable Nikon as well.
In terms of lenses:
- Canon is ahead in terms of usability and range for T/S lens but the gap is much smaller than it used to be compared to Nikon,
The gap may be smaller here, but that still does not change the fact Canon is still ahead.
- Canon is still ahead a bit in terms of mid range constant aperture zooms due to the lack of 24-120 f4 and 70-200 f4 at Nikon,
Which means Canon is ahead here too.
- Canon is still slightly ahead in terms of low light shooting but the 24mm f1.4 just released by Nikon is best in class and 35 f1.4/85 f1.4 are rumored to be out within weeks.
I don't know enough about these to comment. But you forgot to mention Canon's much greater-quality (and greater options) in the super-telephoto range as well ... and, again, its superior super-telephoto offerings are available at a lower price than comparable Nikon products (as well as the others).
So all in all Canon still has an impressive line up but their positioing relative to the competition in terms of pure photography is a lot worst than it was 4 years ago. They are still in a comfortable spot in the mid segment but have lost a lot of ground both in low end and very high end.
You will indeed probably see things differently if you do both photo and video.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, Canon's overall lineup is still in the lead, offering more options, and an overall superior product, at a generally lower price than the competition. Not only did you forget about the super-telephoto segment (mentioned above), but you also omitted discussing the macro segment where Canon not only has the latest and finest macro technology (in the 100mm f/2.8L), but they also offer the only 1:1 - 5:1 super macro in the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macrophoto lens. No other company has an equivalent product.
Bernard, I always enjoy reading your posts ... whether I comment or not ... and you make many fine points here too ... but, essentially, you are only confirming what I said ... which is Canon remains the overall leader in the DSLR segment ... with but a few exceptions here and there. I agree with you that other companies eclipse Canon in certain areas, but the simple fact is those same companies FALL SHORT in far more areas compared to Canon than in the miniscule areas where they enjoy an advantage. (And, let's face it, whatever advantage they have is a temporary one at that.)
Jack
.
-
Canon fanboy ranting aside, I too began to wonder some time ago about Canon's technology direction and quality control. I wrote a blog post about it several months ago. Mirrors that fall off. Cameras that won't focus (the new MkIV seems to be continuing that trend). Inexplicable ghost exposures. High failure rates as noted elsewhere here on LL. A friend had the mirror detach in his 5D MkII - yes, MkII. An isolated incident? Maybe, but symptomatic of the issue nonetheless.
And for the record, Nikon was the first to introduce a DSLR with HD video. 720 is HD.
For the record Contax, I believe, was the first to introduce a full frame DSLR.
-
Maybe I'm not picky or spoiled enough for the Internet, but I am delighted with all of my Canon gear. I don't own any Nikon stuff, but I bet if I did, I'd be delighted with it as well. Hell, I even like the camera on my iPhone. I'm starting to worry that maybe there is something wrong with me, because I have absolutely loved every camera I have ever owned. Perhaps I will buy a Holga or Diana just to see if I can finally find a truly disappointing apparatus to make pictures with.
-
FWIW I have had no significant issues with any of the Canon equipment that I own and I use it heavily in my business. The banding in the 5DII IME is always an issue of insufficient exposure in the shadows-me trying to push the DR beyond its limits. We have all benefited from the DSLR competition and between between C&N in particular. I'm a Canon user simply because when I went digital Canon had a reasonably priced full frame camera (5D) and T/S lenses. I make my living shooting architecture and Canon was clearly superior at the time. Two years latter It was Nikon with their new T/S lenses and ff body and I was recommending Nikon to my students. A year later Canon was back with even better lenses and a 21MP body. They have the slight advantage in my field now as a result of the best glass. IMO at any given time I could do pretty well with either Canon or Nikon these days. We have benefited enormously from this competition. Next year it could all shift again. Since I have been shooting digital there has been no clear leader overall. At any given moment based on ones particular needs yes, but overall I don't see it. After 32 years in this business I think this is the best of times. We have never had such tools and the future promises ever better ones.
-
But you forgot to mention Canon's much greater-quality (and greater options) in the super-telephoto range as well ... and, again, its superior super-telephoto offerings are available at a lower price than comparable Nikon products (as well as the others).
John,
I have to disagree with you on this one. There is no quality gap at all between the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8 and 600 f4.0 produced by both companies. if anything Nikon has a slight edge thanks to the 200-400 f4 VR. The price is lower in some market, but it is the same in Japan where I live.
Yes, Canon's overall lineup is still in the lead, offering more options, and an overall superior product, at a generally lower price than the competition. Not only did you forget about the super-telephoto segment (mentioned above), but you also omitted discussing the macro segment where Canon not only has the latest and finest macro technology (in the 100mm f/2.8L), but they also offer the only 1:1 - 5:1 super macro in the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macrophoto lens. No other company has an equivalent product.
I did not mention macro because both Nikon and Canon are far behind Zeiss here.
Check out Digi Lloyd blog on this one, the new Canon 100mm f2.8 takes the hell of a beating from the Zeiss 100mm f2.0 macro. Incredible that such gaps still exist with modern designs.
Finally I indeed agree that Canon still has an overall slight lead, but it has gone from very significant to slight in less than 4 years. They are now positioned more as a great value company focusing more and more on video while they used to be a "high end photography" company.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
FWIW I have had no significant issues with any of the Canon equipment that I own and I use it heavily in my business. The banding in the 5DII IME is always an issue of insufficient exposure in the shadows-me trying to push the DR beyond its limits. We have all benefited from the DSLR competition and between between C&N in particular. I'm a Canon user simply because when I went digital Canon had a reasonably priced full frame camera (5D) and T/S lenses. I make my living shooting architecture and Canon was clearly superior at the time. Two years latter It was Nikon with their new T/S lenses and ff body and I was recommending Nikon to my students. A year later Canon was back with even better lenses and a 21MP body. They have the slight advantage in my field now as a result of the best glass. IMO at any given time I could do pretty well with either Canon or Nikon these days. We have benefited enormously from this competition. Next year it could all shift again. Since I have been shooting digital there has been no clear leader overall. At any given moment based on ones particular needs yes, but overall I don't see it. After 32 years in this business I think this is the best of times. We have never had such tools and the future promises ever better ones.
You have a lot of chance, Kirk.
Good for you, but it's evident that they are some people who acquire defective material.
With Canon, I've mixed experience, but I can say that in Europe, aftersale service is not very good.
So when you have a good one keep it as long as you can !!!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
Maybe I'm not picky or spoiled enough for the Internet, but I am delighted with all of my Canon gear. I don't own any Nikon stuff, but I bet if I did, I'd be delighted with it as well. Hell, I even like the camera on my iPhone. I'm starting to worry that maybe there is something wrong with me, because I have absolutely loved every camera I have ever owned. Perhaps I will buy a Holga or Diana just to see if I can finally find a truly disappointing apparatus to make pictures with.
Tokengirl
With such an accepting nature I fear that even if you buy a Holga you will be pleased with it and use it make new pictures. You are also in danger of failing to fall into the modern malaise of discontent and should clearly absorb more advertising forthwith.
FWIW all my cameras work and please me, even the film ones.
Mike
-
Canon fanboy ranting aside, I too began to wonder some time ago about Canon's technology direction and quality control. I wrote a blog post about it several months ago. Mirrors that fall off. Cameras that won't focus (the new MkIV seems to be continuing that trend). Inexplicable ghost exposures. High failure rates as noted elsewhere here on LL. A friend had the mirror detach in his 5D MkII - yes, MkII. An isolated incident? Maybe, but symptomatic of the issue nonetheless.
Well, I would rather briefly be a "fanboy" on a simple post ... than become a dedicated public crybaby to such an extent that I would create a public "boo-hoo blog" lamenting a product.
For the record, I have been more than satisfied with my Canon products ... but I do not need to create a public blog to gush to the whole world about it
And for the record, Nikon was the first to introduce a DSLR with HD video. 720 is HD.
For the record Contax, I believe, was the first to introduce a full frame DSLR.
Thank you for the corrections, but both have fallen by the wayside to Canon in leadership of this area.
Jack
.
-
John,
I have to disagree with you on this one. There is no quality gap at all between the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8 and 600 f4.0 produced by both companies. if anything Nikon has a slight edge thanks to the 200-400 f4 VR. The price is lower in some market, but it is the same in Japan where I live.
I honestly haven't checked global pricing, but in the US Nikon super-telephotos tend to be more expensive than Canon's.
Not saying the Nikons aren't good, but Canon's super-telephotos have been rated better overall in the reviews I have seen. I do agree that the Nikin 200-400 is a peerless lens, but Nikon doesn't have anything above 600mm, nor as many options up to that size, while Canon does.
I did not mention macro because both Nikon and Canon are far behind Zeiss here.
Check out Digi Lloyd blog on this one, the new Canon 100mm f2.8 takes the hell of a beating from the Zeiss 100mm f2.0 macro. Incredible that such gaps still exist with modern designs.
Digilloyd is pretty much a Zeiss puppet, is he not?
Still, I myself have a Canon 100mm L macro, and I can see instances where the Zeiss would be superior (namely, critical manual focus). However, this edge is only valuable with absolutely stationary subjects and all the time in the world to obtain that critical focus. In field conditions, where the opportunity for catching a live subject holding still is fleeting (and/or when a flower is blowing slightly in the wind), all the advantage goes to the Canon with it's sharp AF and its new-generation IS.
To be honest, the IS in the new macro can be a bit of a pain when trying for critical MF, which is where I could see a clear advantage to the simplicity of the MF Zeiss.
Still, the Zeiss does not offer true 1:1 and it has no answer to the Canon's 1:1 to 5:1 MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macrophoto lens, nor Canon's 180mm L macro lens.
Further, neither does Nikon or anyone else. Thus, again, overall Canon provides the better and more varied macrophotography technology and options.
Finally I indeed agree that Canon still has an overall slight lead, but it has gone from very significant to slight in less than 4 years. They are now positioned more as a great value company focusing more and more on video while they used to be a "high end photography" company.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, I believe that (lens-wise) Canon offers the best and most high-end macrophotography options, telephotography options, and portrait photography options ... but at this point in time, I have to agree with you that Nikon offers the finest high-res camera as well as the finest super-wides for landscape photography.
Jack
.
-
Not saying the Nikons aren't good, but Canon's super-telephotos have been rated better overall in the reviews I have seen. I do agree that the Nikin 200-400 is a peerless lens, but Nikon doesn't have anything above 600mm, nor as many options up to that size, while Canon does.
I am genuinely interested in hearing about your info source.
Mine is a few years old but was Chasseur d'Image very rigorous test done on an optical bench before they moved to DxO.
As far as the 300 f2.8 VR I own it does clearly outresolve the sensor of my D3x even at f2.8 from center to far corners... I don't see how a lens could be significantly better on the cameras available today.
As far as line up goes, if you look at high end then Canon and Nikon have exactly the same line up to 600mm, very few people use longer for various reasons I think you understand as well as I do.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, I would rather briefly be a "fanboy" on a simple post ... than become a dedicated public crybaby to such an extent that I would create a public "boo-hoo blog" lamenting a product.
For the record, I have been more than satisfied with my Canon products ... but I do not need to create a public blog to gush to the whole world about it
Thank you for the corrections, but both have fallen by the wayside to Canon in leadership of this area.
Jack
.
Is hyperbole your middle name?
I didn't 'create' my blog to complain about Canon. There's a single post. Given the zeal and misstatements of fact made by you in this discussion, it seems your self-description as being 'briefly' a Canon fanboy is probably a pretty gross mischaracterization. Had you actually taken the time to read the blog post, the ridiculousness of your description of me as a 'dedicated public crybaby' would become self-evident to even as ardent a fanboy as you.
I guess Rob Galbraith is a dedicated, public crybaby as well for continuing to discuss Canon's AF problems. I guess the reviewer of the 5D MkII on this very site is a dedicated, public crybaby for stating that it may not even be the best camera in its class. Or that Canon has a 'solid B+' lens lineup.
-
This topic appears to have gone off course. It is was not intended to start a controversy of Canon vs. Nikon, etc. Rather, it was primarily concerned with falling Canon quality standards and product leadership. You can have the best product in the world, but if you can’t consistently reproduce it for sale at consistent hi quality, then who cares? If the whole industry turns out lenses of highly variable quality, does it make it right and should we accept it?
If we agree that IQ [but not necessarily utility] is the measure of camera system “goodness”, then here is how the top ten cameras rank according to DxO Mark: 1/ Phase 1 D65; 2/ Nikon D3X ; 3/ Phase 1 P40; 4/ Nikon D3S; 5/ Nikon D3; 6/ Nikon D700; 7/ Canon EOS 1DS MKIII; 8/ Canon 5D MKII; 9/ Sony Alpha 850; 10/ Sony Alpha 900. The Canon 7D is ranked 32 and bound on either side by the Sony Alpha 550 and the EOS Rebel T2i. This does not seem to support continued “Canon Leadership”.
Finally, I would like to thank all those who found it necessary to add ad hominem remarks that add virtually nothing to the subject at hand.
-
This topic appears to have gone off course. It is was not intended to start a controversy of Canon vs. Nikon, etc. Rather, it was primarily concerned with falling Canon quality standards and product leadership. You can have the best product in the world, but if you can’t consistently reproduce it for sale at consistent hi quality, then who cares? If the whole industry turns out lenses of highly variable quality, does it make it right and should we accept it?
If we agree that IQ [but not necessarily utility] is the measure of camera system “goodness”, then here is how the top ten cameras rank according to DxO Mark: 1/ Phase 1 D65; 2/ Nikon D3X ; 3/ Phase 1 P40; 4/ Nikon D3S; 5/ Nikon D3; 6/ Nikon D700; 7/ Canon EOS 1DS MKIII; 8/ Canon 5D MKII; 9/ Sony Alpha 850; 10/ Sony Alpha 900. The Canon 7D is ranked 32 and bound on either side by the Sony Alpha 550 and the EOS Rebel T2i. This does not seem to support continued “Canon Leadership”.
Finally, I would like to thank all those who found it necessary to add ad hominem remarks that add virtually nothing to the subject at hand.
Just one quick comment.
After reading dozens of Diglloyds Canon and Nikon lens reviews, he has had many problems with the assembly quality of Nikon lenses as well as Canon.
-
The canon 1d mk 1v focus is great, the only negative review was from Galbraith and guess who he gets advertising form, Nikon. All the negative reviewers of the mk111 at sportsshooter.com seem to love the mk 1v. I have had both and the mk 1v is great. I had one bad mk 111 which canon fixed, before the official fixes came out. David
-
Is hyperbole your middle name?
No, my middle name is Arthur.
Speaking of hyperbole and rhetorical BS, if I recall correctly you initiated it, and it seems that you are the one furthering it. A little kidding is fun, but your attempt at escalation only proves you got a little butt-hurt in the exchange
I didn't 'create' my blog to complain about Canon. There's a single post. Given the zeal and misstatements of fact made by you in this discussion, it seems your self-description as being 'briefly' a Canon fanboy is probably a pretty gross mischaracterization. Had you actually taken the time to read the blog post, the ridiculousness of your description of me as a 'dedicated public crybaby' would become self-evident to even as ardent a fanboy as you.
I am sorry I wasn't interested in reading your blog, as you've said nothing to compel me enough to do so. Since you called me a fanboy for having good things to say about Canon, I merely flipped the lens around and called you a crybaby for saying bad things about Canon. Funny how that works, isn't it?
In truth, had you actually just stuck to the facts, and omitted the initial hyperbole and name-calling yourself, I wouldn't have needed to hurt your feelings by calling you a crybaby. And it seems you're still crying
Yes, I am an ardent fan of good camera technology, as I have a developing interest in photography. I am a fan of Canon because I believe they offer the most complete set of tools of any vendor, that are highly-competitive (or better) in every segment, and that they do so for the least overall expense to the consumer. Regarding the imperfections in particular models or samples, I have a more positive outlook on things, and I don't really like to spend too much time complaining about imperfections here and there; I would rather spend my time appreciating the benefits of what I have. I think one of the posters here, Kirk Gittings, summed-up my views best when he said, "After 32 years in this business I think this is the best of times. We have never had such tools and the future promises ever better ones."
Except for the fact I don't have 32 years in the business, this is my view exactly (that the available options are great), and so I get a little annoyed when I read crybaby posts over a few things that may not be perfect yet.
I guess Rob Galbraith is a dedicated, public crybaby as well for continuing to discuss Canon's AF problems. I guess the reviewer of the 5D MkII on this very site is a dedicated, public crybaby for stating that it may not even be the best camera in its class. Or that Canon has a 'solid B+' lens lineup.
I don't read Galbraith's site either and I am not much of a name-dropper.
I do read some of the topics and reviews on this site, as well as others, and the reviewer of the 5DMkII on this site is entitled to his opinion. I don't own a 5DMkII and have no intention of buying one. The reason I posted what I did originally was to address the contention that Canon is "slipping" to the point it will soon be "too late" for them ... which I thought was a bit melodramatic. Nothing more. My own view is more positive, namely that other companies have their own good products and ideas to offer, some of which have surpassed Canon in other segments, which forever means that new innovations will continue to happen and thereby make photography better for everybody ... which I regard as a good thing. Anyway, I have rambled enough.
Take care and I hope you feel better and that you learn to enjoy what's good, rather than always complaining about what's bad. I think each mentality tells a lot about a person.
Jack
.