... Am I alone in the frustration that Canon seems to have slipped from being a leader and even pioneer, to a virtual also-ran?
Don't get me wrong, the 7D Mark II seems like a very nice camera. I'd even consider getting one as backup, or perhaps even as my primary camera -- if I didn't already own a 1Dx. To me, though, the lack of any real announcements for a camera that TRULY succeeds my 6-year old 1Ds Mark III, shows the company has truly split in a way. One segment is focused on consumer and Prosumer products, while the other focuses on cinema oriented products. Truly sad to see when I look back at the history of Canon, especially with the revolutionary development of the EOS1 and on. I've shot with Canon since 1980, and now, I'm truly disgusted. They have abandoned the true pro PHOTOGRAPHER.
Am I alone in the frustration that Canon seems to have slipped from being a leader and even pioneer, to a virtual also-ran?
Nemo
Don't get me wrong, the 7D Mark II seems like a very nice camera. I'd even consider getting one as backup, or perhaps even as my primary camera -- if I didn't already own a 1Dx. To me, though, the lack of any real announcements for a camera that TRULY succeeds my 6-year old 1Ds Mark III, shows the company has truly split in a way. One segment is focused on consumer and Prosumer products, while the other focuses on cinema oriented products. Truly sad to see when I look back at the history of Canon, especially with the revolutionary development of the EOS1 and on. I've shot with Canon since 1980, and now, I'm truly disgusted. They have abandoned the true pro PHOTOGRAPHER.
I really don't care about video in my camera body. (In fact, I actually start doing cinematography in about 1970, and before becoming a photographer, thought I'd have a career in film.) As a friend suggested, I should just buy a Nikon D810 and a couple of lenses to fulfill the high res needs. (I shoot 8-foot tall instore posters for a client almost every month.) Or, maybe I'll go back to medium format and pickup a Pentax 645Z. If it weren't for the dearth of lenses for the system, I would have purchased one already. Am I alone in the frustration that Canon seems to have slipped from being a leader and even pioneer, to a virtual also-ran?
Nemo
You may not be waiting too long.
Lots of buzz on Canon rumors about a 46mp full frame coming. Announcement in October at Photoexpo. Times with history as Conin does seem to make the big announcements in NY.
Hope to see it
Paul
...not because the image quality is bad, but because better exists...
Allegretto has upped the demands! Avogadro's number of pixels ::) Well, that's a nice round number - I will have to take that one over to Canon Rumors and throw it out, see if anyone recognizes it.
There are pros and then there are pros. Pros who shoot sports, weddings, other events, portraits, and other moving-subject work are well enough served by Canon. Architecture shooters are all off with MF tech cameras along the lines of Alpa. And so on. Canon is not likely to be loved at a landscape-dominant forum.
You may not be waiting too long.
Lots of buzz on Canon rumors about a 46mp full frame coming. Announcement in October at Photoexpo. Times with history as Conin does seem to make the big announcements in NY.
Hope to see it
Paul
Whoever Canon has abandoned, it's not the professional video photographer.
See http://cinemaeos.usa.canon.com/.
Hate to say it, but the rumored 46MP camera has been touted as the next great thing for years...
What is the market share of Cinema EOS? Are they competing with RED? Garden-variety broadcast video cameras from Panasonic (If it bleeds, it leads...)? Are Cinema EOS being used routinely for news? shooting low-end TV commercials (Carpet City)? independent documentaries? narrative cable TV projects? high-end Hollywood productions?
If it weren't for the dearth of lenses for the system, I would have purchased one already.
I feel your frustation Nemo.
This is what I see as a possible scenario. Just an exercise in imagination to undertand the Canon IQ leadership demise.
Canon found through industrial spying that Sony had a huge breaktrhough in sensor technology. As this technology was heavily patented they knew then, they were about to be years behind in this department.
They had to come with an alternative strategy to stay put. This strategy had two main points:
One, revamping all those lenses that lacked image quality. They pushed their lens r&d to the limit. It paid off as they could release so many improved lenses that left Nikon behind in this department. Result : Forced loyalty.
Two, it was easy for them to see that video was going to get really hot. They again told their enginners to push video research to the limits. They won the race when they released the 5DII. After the tremendously market acceptance of this camera, the management gave the nod to fully develop the cinema system. Result: it seems they just completely woke the cinema tiger that was half asleep in Sony quarters.
It is now 6 years later. By now, Canon should know for sure if they stay in the sensor race or sacrifice a little pride and start buying Sony big sensors.
When will our frustation end? Hard to tell. It can be this October or in the next few years.
Eduardo
I gave up on Canon replacing my ancient 1DsIII's last year and haven't looked back.
Canon have no answer to the 800e - nothing - not a hint, sniff or wish for anything that even comes close to the image quality of the Nikon.
No, I won't debate various Canon vs. Nikon lenses anymore because it's pointless until Canon pulls their finger out and makes a sensor of the same quality as the 800e.
Abandoning the pros?
You might be surprised to learn that not all pros seek "single image resolution/DR" as their most important consideration. Not everyone is trying to shoot the aurora borealis at optimal light.
As I put on another thread, it's funny, because back when the sensor "size" war started, everyone was crying (bitching, moaning) about "full functionality" over sensor size.
Now everyone is complaining about "single image resolution/DR," as if that is the only consideration for all photographers.
Now that Canon has produced a camera that is more focused on full-functionality (and less on "the best sensor") everyone is crying (bitching, moaning) about the sensor ;D
The 7D II may not have the best single-image production capability of any camera, but it has the, broadest "high level" capabilities of any ASP-C camera, with the availability of the most lens choices. It rivals (and in some cases exceeds) full-frame sports cameras for 1/4 the cost.
That makes it a pretty useful tool for a broad scope of professional users, whose main focus (pardon the pun) is not "singe image resolution/DR."
Jack
This is hilarious. Digital sucks.
Hmm. My best friend (also a photographer), is a bit of a techno-phobe. You sure sound like him. Get over it. Digital is here to stay. Shoot film if you like -- while you can get it.
That's right Jack! People are crazed with mp. The grass is greener delusion. Most of what I see on the forums is garbage anyway. They want hi res snapshots of garbage. 35mm color flatbed scanned film = about 4mp. Everything above 4mp is gravy.
Film is vastly superior to digital in every way.
I love film. I love digital. Two totally different mediums, like watercolor versus oils. And not unlike those mediums, either you know how to get the most out of digital, or you don't. Given a choice between a client dictating I use EPN versus my choice of the time, Provia, (which happened years ago) I'd take digital ANY day of the week and twice on Sunday. I turned to digital in 2001, and never looked back. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your statement.
What is the market share of Cinema EOS? Are they competing with RED? Garden-variety broadcast video cameras from Panasonic (If it bleeds, it leads...)? Are Cinema EOS being used routinely for news? shooting low-end TV commercials (Carpet City)? independent documentaries? narrative cable TV projects? high-end Hollywood productions?Need for Speed used a lot of Canon EOS kit (http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/03/need-for-speed-innovation-gear/) and it was pretty good looking film. Better than the script at least. I saw it on the big screen too.
Film is vastly superior to digital in every way.Methinks I can smell a troll.
Methinks I can smell a troll.
This is hilarious. Digital sucks.
No. I'm too busy.
EPN vs Provia? are you kidding? In which format?
He's back!
I love film. I love digital. Two totally different mediums, like watercolor versus oils. And not unlike those mediums, either you know how to get the most out of digital, or you don't. Given a choice between a client dictating I use EPN versus my choice of the time, Provia, (which happened years ago) I'd take digital ANY day of the week and twice on Sunday. I turned to digital in 2001, and never looked back. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your statement.
I know that I am not super comfortable posting online today landscape images I shot on film 20 years ago.
This is hilarious. Digital sucks.
One of the questions I think we all need to consider is whether it is enough to capture images today at 22mp when we know that they are likely to be commonly displayed in a few years on 8K screens that will be 32mp.
I can see what is going to happen when Canon introduces a new high mp count sensor in a 1 series camera: people will then complain that it will be too expensive... sigh...
Who is willing today to pay north of USD 6000 for a 1DX like camera with high +40 mp sensor?
I can see what is going to happen when Canon introduces a new high mp count sensor in a 1 series camera: people will then complain that it will be too expensive... sigh...
Who is willing today to pay north of USD 6000 for a 1DX like camera with high +40 mp sensor?
One of the questions I think we all need to consider is whether it is enough to capture images today at 22mp when we know that they are likely to be commonly displayed in a few years on 8K screens that will be 32mp.Something to consider - What won't change is normal viewing distance [for display]. People tend to stand further back from very large prints/displays and a print in the hand or magazine spread may well be viewed relatively larger than a massive print. A magazine spread takes up the same field of view as a 10' print on the wall in my lounge. I have numerous original film posters which look great at normal distances, but quite shocking if you get in close to them.
I think it is quite likely that the contract with Nikon prevents Sony from selling the same chip to Canon and others. But imagine what Canon could do if they were able to use Sony Exmor sensors? Canon would save big money on R&D and eliminate their inferior chip production. And it would instantly level the image quality playing field and focus attention back on lenses and general usability.Which would be a bit like the days of film, with Sony being the new Kodak. The drawback being some folks like Fuji and others Agfa. So having two big companies with mostly comparable bodies but different looks isn't a bad thing.
Which would be a bit like the days of film, with Sony being the new Kodak. The drawback being some folks like Fuji and others Agfa. So having two big companies with mostly comparable bodies but different looks isn't a bad thing.
this comment assumes that Canon lacks the R&D Horsepower to do it themselvesNo the comment was in reply to the concept of Canon using the same Sony sensors as other people. I'm not assuming anything about Canon's R+D.
I know that I am not super comfortable posting online today landscape images I shot on film 20 years ago. Some are strong enough from a subject standpoint to overcome the limited quality, many relied on the "image quality" and they are now very far below the required threshold.
Something to consider - What won't change is normal viewing distance [for display]. People tend to stand further back from very large prints/displays and a print in the hand or magazine spread may well be viewed relatively larger than a massive print. A magazine spread takes up the same field of view as a 10' print on the wall in my lounge. I have numerous original film posters which look great at normal distances, but quite shocking if you get in close to them.
Only anal pixel peepers who go up close up to a large image will ever be bothered and frankly you'll never please them, because they are more concerned with the detail than the photo itself.
No the comment was in reply to the concept of Canon using the same Sony sensors as other people. I'm not assuming anything about Canon's R+D.
From the number of posts, I think this has hit a cord with Canon users.It did, probably because many have been wanting to replace 1DS3 bodies and there's nothing to replace them with that offers better image quality in the low ISO range. I'd love to have all the improved features (LCD, write speed, and so on) of the 1DX on the 1DS3, but I wouldn't buy such a camera unless it also offered higher resolution and dynamic range. At the moment there is no such camera in the Canon line. All of this says a lot for how good the 1DS3 was in its day, and a lot about the stagnation at Canon.
A simple kit would be a "D810 like" canon camera + 50f1.2 + 85f1.2 + a wide TS lens + either the 135f2 L or the Zeiss 135 f2. If the camera is robust and serious,I might not need more gear for the next 5 to 6 years. Apart the TS, all lenses I have mentioned do not really exist (AF wise) in Nikon land.
So I hope Canon is announcing something cool before December otherwise I will be forced to buy two D810 body and using it for the Next 5 years. (But I really want to try out a very high MP canon cam just for portraitures... and I absolutely love f1.2 lenses...).
The Canon 85mm f1.2 is very special, no doubt.
When I got back into photography seriously, went full-on Nikon and the colors always bothered me, especially flesh tones. The RX-1 Sony is a helluva camera and I love it, but same thing on colors
Canon is far more pleasing color and balance to my eye and that is more important than having 6.023 X 10^23 pixels
However I do understand why for some the count, counts...
Nikon has already played a remarkable card with their 58mm f1.4 (imho best bokeh with the Canon 85mm f1.2 of anything shorter than the Nikon 200mm f2.0) and they are likely to release soon their new 135mm f2.0. I would expect Sato san to have led that project too. He will probably have focused on look instead of emotionless technical perfection.
your quite right! I meant to quote someone elseNo problem. :)
my bad... mea culpa...
I find Canon oversaturates the Reds and Nikon oversaturates the greens. Of course, depending on the camera model, you can customize this to some extent or 'correct' it globally on a per camera basis in your post processing software. And most digital cameras want to shift blues toward purple.Do you use LR/ACR to process your raw files, if so are you using the Canon profiles in the Calibration tab? These profiles were added some years back and they solved the red/orange rendition problem that was an issue when using Adobe profiles.
I do not think Canon is abandoning the pros...
... I never ever used any canon DSLR
While some pros are abandoning Canon, some others are jumping at the chance to use it:
Ah yes. Perhaps they may be lower in numbers, but more influential and visible. Look at any ad from almost any major manufacturer. Frequently, they tout the work of a pro, not Aunt Mary down the street. When beta testing, manufacturers use pros (such as Canon with sports shooters at the World Cup or Olympics), not the Oshkosh Camera Club.
Ah yes. Perhaps they may be lower in numbers, but more influential and visible. Look at any ad from almost any major manufacturer. Frequently, they tout the work of a pro, not Aunt Mary down the street. When beta testing, manufacturers use pros (such as Canon with sports shooters at the World Cup or Olympics), not the Oshkosh Camera Club.
Lots of high end Canon gear. Price drop😃...I am switching to Nikon from Canon
Canon 5d Mark 3 in MINT condition, like new in box... Reason for sale: switching to another system.
From recent threads in the For Sale forum:
A local camera shop reports that Canon sells slightly better than Nikon, even though the shop owner prefers Nikon. Most of the staff own Canon. I have heard several people complain that Canon's pro program is much better, and that would be a real consideration. They say Nikon USA does not care....I hear the same thing about how the two companies treat dealers. Nikon is uncooperative in the extreme.
I have no horse in this race, but if I didn't own Leicaflexes I would not buy Nikon under any circumstances. Ever.
This is a very good point, and as a potential switcher I'd be very interested to hear about anyone's experience getting Nikon equipment repaired. CPS members get repair turnaround times of 2 days and 30% repair discount with a Platinum membership, and up to 5-7 days and no discount with a free "Silver" membership. There are also lots of other perks in the program. Based on my own experience the repairs are flawless and you get back a camera that's cleaned inside and out and looks like new. I've heard that non-CPS repairs of "professional equipment" (1-series and 5D series bodies, and I think L-series lenses) is also 5-7 days, but I'm not sure if that's always true.
It's not like that cameras go to service every 5,000 shutter clicks, like cars. In 40 years of photography, I had to send a camera for repair only once (Canon 40D for a faulty CF slot). When on assignment or trip, service time does not matter much, that is why we have back up cameras.
From the horse's mouth, I hear that Nikon treats dealers poorly, and has very poor service to pro club members, if there still is one.Well i cannot complain about the nikon professional service here in Holland; The Nikon service is very good. For the time of repair you can have a replacement of your equipment if you like..
Well i cannot complain about the nikon professional service here in Holland; The Nikon service is very good. For the time of repair you can have a replacement of your equipment if you like..
and repairs usually take only a few days; If you need a replacement while working you can have it in a few hours...
Pros need it. They drop cameras, and even though they have multiples they still need service.
Pros use their cameras much more than amateurs. I would imagine that today's cameras are much more fragile because of all the electronics and plastic do-dads on them.
It's not like that cameras go to service every 5,000 shutter clicks, like cars. In 40 years of photography, I had to send a camera for repair only once (Canon 40D for a faulty CF slot). When on assignment or trip, service time does not matter much, that is why we have back up cameras.
Interesting observation. I've been shooting for decades, but only really selling in the last 6 years or so. Never dropped or broke any camera, until I started to make money with them. And Canon fixed them quickly and completely when I did so.
Oh, so THAT'S what people mean by saying that Canon caters to wildlife photographers.....
Fine humor, Slobodan!
Frankly repair turn around time/temporary replacement provision for DSLRs should be mostly irrelevant for pros considering the price of bodies such as the D750. If you cannot afford to buy one such back up you have most certainly picked the wrong business line by a huge stretch.
It is a different story for lenses, in particular the big guns because most people cannot afford to own back ups due to their much higher prices.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi,
Foxes are known to be smart customers, hey may know what the future holds.
Best regards
Erik
I would argue that quick turn-around time is valuable no matter how many you own.
...since canon announced another model for the next months...
...over the next 6 months we will see a new 5d, then an update to the 1dx.
Of course the quality of a repair is as or more important than how long it takes. In my fairly limited experience Canon's repairs have always been perfect.I had a 16-35mm fixed by CPS UK a while back and it came back with the focus marks on the wrong way around. But it seems from more recent experience, that CPS here is a lot better and faster too.
Frankly repair turn around time/temporary replacement provision for DSLRs should be mostly irrelevant for pros considering the price of bodies such as the D750. If you cannot afford to buy one such back up you have most certainly picked the wrong business line by a huge stretch.Depends if the case with both cameras are in get damaged and knackers both cameras together, crap like that does happen.
It is a different story for lenses, in particular the big guns because most people cannot afford to own back ups due to their much higher prices.Carrying them would be the bigger issue. They make up a large part of the weight of my bag.
Why?
Cheers,
Bernard
Do you really not understand, or are you making a special effort to be obtuse here?
I really don't understand what the difference is between 2 and 4 days TAT on bodies repair for working pros. Especially if you use Canon or Nikon whose bodies are so cheap that owning 2 back up bodies should be a no brainer for any profitable business.
I understand the difference btwn one hour and one day though but I don't think it's the point being discussed here, is it?
Cheers,
Bernard
2 or 4 days is not the issue. Repairs can drag on for weeks or months. In the case of lenses, it is not always possible to have a spare due to cost, and rental may be unavailable. Having the benefit of a loaner can be a lifesaver.
I agree about lenses as mentioned above.
Cheers,
Bernard
It's obvious you have never had a pole-vaulter drop his pole right on your Leicaflex and 250mm Telyt-R, separating them at a significant angle.
I really don't understand what the difference is in terms of actual impact between 2 and 4 days TAT on bodies repair for working pros. Especially if you use Canon or Nikon whose bodies are so cheap that owning 2 back up bodies should be a no brainer for any profitable business.
It is a different story for lenses, in particular the big guns because most people cannot afford to own back ups due to their much higher prices.These statements seem a bit contradictory as Canon1Dx costs about the same in the UK as a 16-35mm f2.8, a 35mm f1.4, a 24-70 f2.8, an 85mm f1.2 and a 70-200mm f2.8 all L glass which would cover most photographer's needs.
U are right that I haven't but am not sure what U are disagreeing with.
Cheers,
Bernard
These statements seem a bit contradictory as Canon1Dx costs about the same in the UK as a 16-35mm f2.8, a 35mm f1.4, a 24-70 f2.8, an 85mm f1.2 and a 70-200mm f2.8 all L glass which would cover most photographer's needs.
A 5DIII costs the same as a 16-35mm f2.8 + a 24-70mm f2.8 which will do most of my shooting.
Not saying you shouldn't have a back-up body, but you're a bit off with your justification re prices of bodies Vs lenses. Particularly as you say two back up bodies, i.e. a total of 3 bodies, but I guess you mean two in total. :)
Uhmmmm...how many 250mm Telyts do you think I need to have on hand in case of wayward vaulting poles?
I agree with you, never said the opposite.
If you are a pro sport shooter at the Olympics either you belong to a pool of photographers who can share spare pieces of critical equipment or you bring 2x1Dx and a 5DIII as second back up if you shoot alone.
This seems like the most basic common sense to me, is it not?
Lenswise nobody can carry 2 400f2.8 so you probably bring a 400f2.8 and a 200f2.0 + converter as back up, right?
Shorter lenses also, have one short prime 35mm as back up of the 24-70mm f2.8 sounds like a good idea to me, but what do I know?
In short, we need to distinguish the need in terms of support. Is this about hot spare during an event or about the repair time needed during "regular business" times?
Cheers,
Bernard
The point I was making was that the quicker you can get your gear back the better off you will be in the event something happens to a key piece of kit. You cannot anticipate every eventuality.
Faster is always better, but the point I was trying to make is that the impact of TAT is probably less for some types of equipment such as DSLRs that are the more complex, therefore likely to fail and for which we will always have back ups.
Anyway, I think that we understand each others. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
I didn't say that, read what I actually wrote.These statements seem a bit contradictory as Canon1Dx costs about the same in the UK as a 16-35mm f2.8, a 35mm f1.4, a 24-70 f2.8, an 85mm f1.2 and a 70-200mm f2.8 all L glass which would cover most photographer's needs.Having two or three of everything is a bit of overkill, don't you think? Who can afford that? 400mm 2.8 lenses can cost $10K or more...
A 5DIII costs the same as a 16-35mm f2.8 + a 24-70mm f2.8 which will do most of my shooting.
Not saying you shouldn't have a back-up body, but you're a bit off with your justification re prices of bodies Vs lenses. Particularly as you say two back up bodies, i.e. a total of 3 bodies, but I guess you mean two in total. :)
Having two or three of everything is a bit of overkill, don't you think? Who can afford that? 400mm 2.8 lenses can cost $10K or more...
I didn't say that, read what I actually wrote.
I'm pointing out that Bernard's justification for 3 back up bodies, because they are so cheap compared to lenses makes no sense. A pro body can cost as much as the entire lens kit that many pros need.
Having two or three of everything is a bit of overkill, don't you think? Who can afford that? 400mm 2.8 lenses can cost $10K or more...
I didn't say that, read what I actually wrote.
I'm pointing out that Bernard's justification for 3 back up bodies, because they are so cheap compared to lenses makes no sense. A pro body can cost as much as the entire lens kit that many pros need.
The only pros needing also a 1Dx as second body (1st back up) are IMHO the sports shooters. Even for them a 5DIII is ok as 3rd body.
The only pros needing also a 1Dx as second body (1st back up) are IMHO the sports shooters. Even for them a 5DIII is ok as 3rd body.The bit where you say bodies are really cheap compared to lenses. Nothing in this area is cheap to start with, less eye wateringly expensive would be a more accurate description. As the prices I listed above show, you can get a lot of L glass for the price of the pro camera bodies. So by your logic, as these are far less expensive than the camera bodies, you probably should get backups of them too. :P
Two 5DIII as back up is fine for all the others that must represent 90+% of pros.
But the main point is that we DO own several back ups for bodies, whatever their price.
So I am not really sure what part of what I wrote doesn't make sense.
The bit where you say bodies are really cheap compared to lenses. Nothing in this area is cheap to start with, less eye wateringly expensive would be a more accurate description. As the prices I listed above show, you can get a lot of L glass for the price of the pro camera bodies. So by your logic, as these are far less expensive than the camera bodies, you probably should get backups of them too. :P
So for the 90+% of pros that would only need one 1DX and two 5DIII, that's still more money that the lenses they would buy would cost. I'm certainly not against having back up bodies, but saying they are cheap is the part that is a bit daft. If I spent that much money on say a bicycle or camera, most people would think it was crazy money.
In my days shooting film, I always traveled with four camera bodies. If you think about it, film bodies were comparatively cheap. (An EOS1n cost about $1400, compared to my 1Dx which was $6700. The original 1Ds cost me close to $9000!) Other than primes overlapping with zooms, I only travel with two digital bodies -- my 1Dx and 1ds Mark III. Since all my glass are "L" lenses, I can't afford backups to those. I've often thought of going with a 2nd 1Dx, because the camera is so sweet to shoot with and I like the ergonomics. As it is, 95% of my shots are made on that body -- hence why I keep holding out for Canon to do something significant. Maybe I'll bite the bullet and go with a 2nd 1Dx, because, if I do, you KNOW Canon will finally release something. One thing Canon use to do is release equipment in the amateur market to try out new technology, which after refined, they'd put in the pro bodies. (Almost the opposite of Nikon.)
I still assert that Canon, for their lip service, has ignored the pro market for a long time, choosing amateur and cinema over the still pro photographer. Where Canon does shine (at least until recently) is the CPS program. From all I've heard, much better and faster service than their Nikon counterpart. No such program exists for any other brand (that I know of) -- Sony, Leica, you name it. But, again, where I disparage Canon is even the CPS program is gradually turning it's back on pros. Originally, to join CPS, you have to show published work, show you were in fact a working photographer. Now, it's pony up the money and have a certain level of equipment (so in theory, any well equipped dentist could join). But what's worse is, even paying for the service now, if you say to them when sending in your 50/1.2 and a 1Dx, "Hey, it's not sharp. It's also back focusing", you end up with an $800 bill! (True story from six months ago.) If I'd sent those in for cleaning, they may or may not have caught the problem, but IF they had, it wouldn't have cost me anything since it was a "clean and check" service. Oh, and the 50 still sucks big time. (I'm getting rid of it and buying a Sigma 50 -- rented for my last shoot and a truly sharp lens.)
Unless things change dramatically, after using Canon since 1980, I believe I can say, they've abandoned the pro still shooter.
Uhmmmm...the 50mm 1.2 is not a 'sharp' lens. It's a high-speed lens, and like many fast lenses suffers from focus shift as you stop down.
Obviously it's not super sharp wide open. I still swear by the adage that ANY lens' sharpest aperture is generally 1-1/2 to 2 stops down from max. (There are also obviously exceptions -- my 300/2.8, and to a degree, even the 70-200/2.8 II, are very sharp wide open.) On a shoot a couple months ago, even at 4 and 4.5 it sucked on the edges -- and I'm not saying extreme, just not center. Even 5.6 was just not that great. My 24-70/2.8 is sharper at 5.6, and that is not always the greatest of lenses. By comparison, the Sigma 50 was very sharp across the field from about 3.5 on, and certainly at 4. By comparision, my 85/1.2 is a much better lens than the 50 at any given aperture, from about f2 and on. Trust me, after 35-years shooting, I think I can spot a dog among cats.
Super-high speed lenses (other than Leica's) are generally not intended as general-purpose optics. Nor is it universally true that all lenses are sharpest 1-1/2 to 2 stops down from max. Some of Leica's lenses are diffraction-limited (meaning that they are best wide open and become less sharp as you stop down because of diffraction effects).
Try reading here:
http://collectiblend.com/Library/Leica_Lens_Compendium_Content.php
I think you ought to look at the guys work on his website before teaching him about lenses - he seems to know about photography alright. I don't think a Leica lens will improve the pictures....
Jim
Not the point.
You cannot expect Canon's 1.2L lens to match it, as it is a much less costly lens. They cannot ask such a price. Not enough customers would buy an even more expensive lens from Canon. Also, the need for super-speed lenses has diminished considerably with digital cameras with super sensitivity compared to films.
Leica's is just about the only super-speed lens that could equal more moderate-aperture lenses.
I think the pictures are exactly the point. What other point is there? The photographer makes a living from photography so I expect he knows exactly what gear he uses and what it's limitations are. He's shooting fashion type pictures - he's more interested in feel and mode than obsessing over lens tests. If you want to shoot at 1.2 you put up with the small deficiencies. I've got an f0.95 lens which is soft wide open. So what - I love the soft dreamy images.
Jim
No, but I CAN expect good results when stopped down 3- to 4-stops from max. For a lens (the Sigma) to out resolve a lens costing twice as much for about 1/3 stop faster, is pretty laughable. Even my older 50/1.4 does better at f4-f5.6. Super speed lens ARE designed to provide excellent results at near max aperture. It's the whole reason you purchase them, rather than a slower model. It is within expectations that a 1.2 lens should be as sharp if not sharper at, say, 2.8 as the plastic barrelled 50/1.8. To not be as sharp as even my 24-70 says I have a dog. All my fast lens (85/1.2, 135/2, 300/2.8 70-200/2.8) all perform superbly (well maybe the exception being the 85), 1-stop from max. If you can't use a 50/1.2 and achieve good-excellent results at 2-2.8, then you've absolutely wasted your money on a heavy, expensive piece of glass.
No, they are not. If he thinks a Canon 50mm 1.2L is going to provide images that are as sharp as a slower lens he is simply mistaken. It can't be done on a practical basis. Maybe the Defense Dept. or NASA can afford million-dollar lenses (and they have such things)...but for ordinary customers it isn't practicable.
Hang on - are we talking about lens tests or photography? How can you possibly tell this guy, who produces superb pictures, that he doesn't know a sharp picture when he see one?
I think you are seriously deluded and all you can do is quote lens tests and reviews. The pictures you have shown yourself do not demonstrate the superior Leica optics. It is about pictures not tests.
For fashion and portraiture, you want a different "look", not necessarily clinically sharp 100% of the time. I daresay that the bokeh is at least as important as the acutance for a fashion/portrait photographer. Hello, I am getting on in years, and do I want every single skin pore lovingly detailed? No. Do I want plasticky-looking post-processing rendering to hide the pores and make me look like Barbie? No. (OK, maybe I am blaming those G-dawful ads for portraiture post-processing software - the "after" always looks way worse than the "before" to me.
Or, maybe I'll go back to medium format and pickup a Pentax 645Z. If it weren't for the dearth of lenses for the system, I would have purchased one already. Am I alone in the frustration that Canon seems to have slipped from being a leader and even pioneer, to a virtual also-ran?
A Mamiya Leaf Credo 40 kit (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/mamiya-credo-special-promo) is ballpark the same price as a 645Z with a lens, and comes with a Schneider 80mm LS lens (sync@1/1600th) and has a complete line of LS lenses as well as lots of less expensive non LS glass to fill in gaps if budget requires. If you're waiting for Canon to invest heavily in competing on top 1% image quality I think you'll be waiting a long time - there is a lot more money in it for them to make their mid-tier and low-end offerings better/cheaper, at least in their minds. Do a quick google search on sales figures and you'll see what % of their revenue comes from the 1D line vs their Rebel line, and then tell me what you'd invest in if you were their CEO. In comparison Phase/Leaf can ONLY sell if they produce the absolute highest image quality solutions, so where will they invest?
No, the Canon 50mm 1.2L lens is not a dog. It's the best that can be made with the technology available at a reasonable price. If you want better, be prepared to pay tens of thousands of dollars.
The 50 1.2 L is a superb lens.
It's brilliant for environmental portraits IMHO and (like it's 85mm cousin) has a look all it's own when shooting under f2.
Ok. Then MY 50/1.2 is a dog.
And another thought: the comments that fast lenses aren't really suppose to be as sharp is, honestly, crap. I'm looking at a shot, full length (and not even filling out the frame), from a catalog shoot I just did on the streets in NYC. Crap light. I shot with my 135/2. To me, it's one of the best lenses Canon produces. (Too bad no IS, but maybe in the future.) The shot was made at f3.2, 1/250. Tack sharp, resolving, on my 1Dx, individual eye-lashes. Given the exact same setup, but using the 50, sharpness would have been very disappointing.
Ok. Then MY 50/1.2 is a dog.
The 50 1.2 L is a superb lens.
It's brilliant for environmental portraits IMHO and (like it's 85mm cousin) has a look all it's own when shooting under f2.
A real possibility unfortunately.
I returned the first copy I bought and the second was much better.
Have you had the lens projected to check for issues ?
I have no horse in this race (Hell, I don't even shoot Canon), but it's always amusing to see a Leicaphile at work proclaiming his gear's superiority.
Especially when the person in question is some guy with a Flickr stream full of unexceptional snapshots of people trying to "Educate" a pro with an exceptional portfolio why and how the latter's equipment is crap.
Carry on. ;D
Wow - Mamiya body, back, and Schneider 80mm LS lens for $14,000.00. Not in the budget now. But, that is not too far off the "low-end" Pentax 645Z price.
:D I come here to get a better grade of G.A.S. ;D Unfortunately, it is easier to upgrade your G.A.S. wants than your photography and post-processing skills. (putzes clutzily with PS masks)
I prescribe voluntary penance for the excessive gear-o-phile obsessing not related to actual image making and selling. Go Make A Pinhole Camera, and go shoot with your favorite film or direct positive paper. If nothing else, it would be fun.
tell me more, synn. (NP slaps self upside head, tells self "go off and make and shoot that pinhole cam")
My creature comforts require a good live view with magnification, for manual focusing in the field (landscapes). And - a proper cable release option (one of my points of irritation with Sigma DP Merrill - NO way to implement remote release).
Canon CPS has worked on the lens several times. Most recently six months ago.
You haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, and I do, so don't contradict me! I have 50 years of experience, 43 years with Leicaflex cameras and lenses, all with film. I have often been astonished at the image quality of my equipment with B&W or Kodachrome films. What you see here is mostly inexpensive sans from recent photos taken hand-held on Fuji Pro 400H high-speed color negative film with uncontrolled light, which I use because I am mostly shooting people candidly these days. I don't shoot rocks or trees or use a tripod often. Given my objectives, my photos are satisfactory for my purposes, and are not intended for large display. I could use slower films and spend more and get higher-res scans but I have no need for that. But then I would not be able to get the images I like, which require long lenses and fast films.
I'm sorry but this says it all...... I don't class myself as a great photographer but I can safely say that my pictures in general are better than yours. And so are those of Nemo (much better than mine) so I think we do know what we are talking about. I agree you know more about Leica gear than me, but don't accuse me of contradicting ridiculous statements. You are questioning every other photographers knowledge based on your own personal bias. How old are you? Funny that you've been using the same gear for 40 years - all that shows is that you have your mind closed to alternatives. But as I've said - each to their own. I'm not sure what you're getting so worked up about. The fact that you have been 'astonished' by your image quality, but then post links to slightly unsharp or out of focus pictures tells me that you do not set high standards. Why link to snapshots? At least show the very best of your pictures.
You question the skill and knowledge of professional photographers and think you know best. There are lots of amateurs who are better photographers than me - but while I am prepared to listen to some of the technical gurus on LL who obviously understand the mechanics of photography in it's broadest sense even if they are not great photographers, I cannot be lectured to by an average photographer with a religious zealotry for one particular brand of camera - which quite obviously must be the best because you use it. You may be right, but so what? We who photograph for a living just want gear that does the job. We are mostly enthusiasts too and love what we do. You seem full of negativity and venom. That is sad.
Oh, and anybody that quotes Ken Rockwell as an authority slips a little in my estimation. Only because while I have no personal axe to grind with him, I have read some of his views and statements that just do not tally with my experience.
Jim
Guys, do not fight :)
The thing is that a lot of Canon users just wait for an high MP "pro" camera and it is very possible that will be reality. A firm like Canon is obliged to studies this option because ... it's canon !! It is not a random brand ... So it take time (and hope on our side).
The 7DMk II is a cool answer for pro who use APS-C, not like Nikon with the D7xxx line ... Most of my pro friends use multiple gear and are a bit tired lugging around tones of different material to cover their needs. Some of them found peace in the D810 while some stay with the 5DMKIII. So far, the files of the 5DMkIII are very nice and 22 MP are plenty for a lot of applications if not most.
The thing is that all Pros in photography do not need the same gear. Some pros do not even know what gear suit them the best. But the vast majority would like an "all in one", for sure. Moderate weight, high MP, good lenses, good video if needed and a good price ... and rugged.
A lot of ppl here speak about pros and I wonder what they mean, "gear wise", about being pro. I know pros in macro photography who use old DSLR you might label as crap; there is pros with full MF gear (some even say they own them, on forum, but in reality they rent them; I've busted some). Lately I do a lot of event and cross the roads of some pro (independent) event photographers ... the vast majority do not even use FF. D7000/7100 + 7D/70D are the most common DSLR I see (and black magic cameras). When I see D700/D800/D3/D3s/1DS/1Dx/5D ... it is agency photographers and the gear is owned by the agency. I speak for France and my little finger tell me it is approximately the same in other country.
So, by observation, the photographic landscape of professionals in photography is tiny, very tiny. Pros with MF are rare; not on forums ofc but they are pretty rare. Pros who really need 36 MP files are pretty rare too. As an example, I got a commissioned work for a French wine : Domaine de la Romanée Conti. I did the shoots with two cameras a D700 and a DP3 Merril. Client was super happy and never asked or looked at my material, never. 12 MP and 16 MP. Generally, when a client want big files he ask for it. Most pros do rent the specific material today, if needed.
So ... Canon is abandoning the Pros ?? Hell no. Nonsense.
We have more tools today at our disposal than ever in history. If the goal of a society (if I'm not wrong) is making profit, renting is one if not the best option. Rent the material you need and buy the system you like (if you can ^^).
The poster we speak of would do well to take a long break from the forums and think long and hard about his attitude and his writings here.
Hulyss, I need to hang out at your gigs - Romanee-Conti , eh (please imagine appropriate accent). You can't get any more prestigious than that in the wine universe. Period. A sniff of the cork could pay for the photographer's entire kit. Are the photos on the Romanee-Conti website?
One good thing Ken Rockwell has done is provide a catalogue of commonly available Nikkor production lenses (as opposed to industrial lenses, check the Red Book for that). He may not be the ultimate authority on image quality, but he has provided useful information for those of us who wonder "what are these ancient manual lenses my relative just gave me?".
Hulyss: Were you allowed to sniff a taster's glass? That would be worth bragging rights.
Note: I am not a wine aficionado, but my dad was, he had books about wine and vineyards in the house, and about 40 years ago he took a trip-of-a-lifetime to France to tour the vineyards. I am not sure that he ever got to try a Romanee-Conti wine. This was a much better visit than his previous visit to France, which involved freezing his butt off in the Ardennes Forest getting shot at by Germans (AKA "Battle of the Bulge").
I can see what is going to happen when Canon introduces a new high mp count sensor in a 1 series camera: people will then complain that it will be too expensive... sigh...I
Who is willing today to pay north of USD 6000 for a 1DX like camera with high +40 mp sensor?
Note that the D810, Sony A7R etc are not in the same price category as a D4 or 1DX.
To me, the only doubt is whether Canon will put such a sensor in a 1D series camera, or in the 5D type camera. In a sense, the 1D high resolution sensor camera may have died; again, the action-pro camera from Nikon is not high res sensor.
Or they may put it in both series.
In the end, it's all about numbers, not pros (of course).
Iwantam hoping for a 6D/EOS-M ish high-resolution, high DR @ low ISO, compact, low cost EF compatible (possibly via converter). Let's call it a Canon "A7r" with the benefit of Canon flash compability, superior lens electronic control, familiar Canon ergonomy. Throw in some innovation (_working_ all-electronic shutter?), and my wallet is open.
I'd be willing to sacrifice AF tracking, framerate, magnesium housing (though splash-proof would be nice), abundance of dials in order to keep costs down (and to protect the margins of Canons higher-end offerings). Personally, I can live without wifi, GPS, articulated LCD and video as well, but I don't know if that is wise for sales of such a product (I realise that a successful product cannot be tailormade for me).
I guess that Canon are in for the long term. Building/purchasing a sensor plant is probably not something that you do on a whim. Thus, there is considerable delay from changes in customer preferences (e.g. HD video) or competitor improvements (e.g. Sony sensors) and until Canon can offer a response. In the mean time, they have to (like all of us, I guess) offer the best that they can, hoping that people will like their stuff, while keeping their own costs down.
-h
I still assert that Canon, for their lip service, has ignored the pro market for a long time, choosing amateur and cinema over the still pro photographer. Where Canon does shine (at least until recently) is the CPS program. From all I've heard, much better and faster service than their Nikon counterpart. No such program exists for any other brand (that I know of) -- Sony, Leica, you name it. But, again, where I disparage Canon is even the CPS program is gradually turning it's back on pros. Originally, to join CPS, you have to show published work, show you were in fact a working photographer. Now, it's pony up the money and have a certain level of equipment (so in theory, any well equipped dentist could join). But what's worse is, even paying for the service now, if you say to them when sending in your 50/1.2 and a 1Dx, "Hey, it's not sharp. It's also back focusing", you end up with an $800 bill! (True story from six months ago.) If I'd sent those in for cleaning, they may or may not have caught the problem, but IF they had, it wouldn't have cost me anything since it was a "clean and check" service. Oh, and the 50 still sucks big time. (I'm getting rid of it and buying a Sigma 50 -- rented for my last shoot and a truly sharp lens.)
Unless things change dramatically, after using Canon since 1980, I believe I can say, they've abandoned the pro still shooter.
Fine, some bodies are expensive relative to some lenses but lenses overall break less often (unless they are dropped of course) and using another lens is often a realistic workaround in the case a breakdown does occur. That's my understanding of the reason why people don't own back up of lenses. Would you not agree?Not some bodies - the type of bodies in question compared to the majority of lenses needed by pros. Also I've not had a camera body fail this century, even though I cracked a rear screen when it fell off a bed on location. But camera still worked fine. However times lens have been for repair - 16-35mm x3, 35mm x1, 24-70mm x1, 70-200 x2 and they've been mollycoddled compared to a lot of pro kit. No lens has ever been dropped or banged as it happens. The 35mm died, first time I used it which was particularly annoying as I decided to travel light for once and that was the only lens I had with me that weekend away.
Btw, nobody would think you are crazy if you spent that much on bikes as a pro. In fact most people would think you'd be crazy to be a pro cyclist not owning 2 back ups of your 6-10 KUS$ carbon wonder bike because those DO break.Like pro riders have to pay for their bikes ::) ....they are sponsored to ride what ever bike their team provides. Oh and carbon bikes are incredibly strong these days and I've had steel and aluminium frames snap on me BTW. Just bought a carbon seat post to replace a broken aluminium one as it happens and as I had a titanium one break previously and have bent steel ones, I thought I'd try carbon for a change. Ironically I'm a light rider but I have a long seat post with lots of layback, which makes for a big lever with lots of stress over rough terrain/roads.
And in the end, a 3KUS$ back up body that will remain mostly un-used and will therefore last years is really nothing compared to the cost of running even a small business. Not to mention the fact that many pros keep their former generation bodies as back up. That is simply a totally negligible expenditure for a pro considering the huge risk of not owning sufficient back up.Not really sure what/who you are arguing against as folks including me seem to agree a back up body is the sensible thing to do. ???
Oh, and anybody that quotes Ken Rockwell as an authority slips a little in my estimation. Only because while I have no personal axe to grind with him, I have read some of his views and statements that just do not tally with my experience.A little!? Anyone who quotes in seriousness Rockwell should immediately be discounted. Rockwell is a troll who admits to making crap up and also mentions that nothing he says should be taken seriously.
A little!? Anyone who quotes in seriousness Rockwell should immediately be discounted. Rockwell is a troll who admits to making crap up and also mentions that nothing he says should be taken seriously.
I was trying to be polite.... :)
Jim
I don't think it's a matter of "Canon Abandons the Pros" as much as it is "Canon focuses where the profit is".
Could it be that the the focus on DR is related to the fact the this forum is called Luminous Landscape and not Luminous studio? ;)
Actually I was responding to a thread that asked if Canon abandoned the profession market and since I make 100% of my income as a professional image maker, I thought I'd respond.
Regardless, I think you took my response wrong. The upside to these forums is it involves a lot of different image creators which all have a different perspective.
Then again I did enjoy the forum more when their was more professional participation and a little less chart/dxo/dr/mpx sweating and of course the big negative "brand worship".
They might appreciate your assistance as a moderator.
Oh c'mon guys... it's not like you will get crabs from visiting his site...No, but you up his page views and therefore potential income he can make from advertisers.
Agreed. But then again, the presence of these brand centric threads doesn't affect the rest of the forum. I am not sure why some people still start such threads though. I guess you are right that some people somehow associate themselves with certain brands of equipment.Did you type that with a straight face Bernard, as you come across a a massive Nikon fanboi?
Did you type that with a straight face Bernard, as you come across a a massive Nikon fanboi?
I am as brand agnostic as it gets.Yet the overwhelming impression of your posting on LuLa is Nikon, Nikon, Nikon. Someone else commented on it very recently, possibly in this thread, so not just my imagination
I'll buy anything I can afford that could help my photography and makes sense in the context of what I already own. I am not a camera collector so I avoid overlapping equipment.
I'll be as vocal in favor of Canon as I am about Nikon the day Canon delivers something superior for my needs. I am just as enthusiastic about my Sony RX100/a5100, Sigma DP2 Quattro,... like I used to be enthusiastic with my Canon S90. I own(ed) them because I think(thought) they are(were) the best, I don't think they are the best because I own them. If you can follow me?
Regardless, I don't remember ever starting a thread running down equipment from a manufacturer I don't currently use and my opinion remains that Canon offers a brilliant system for pro photographers. Feel free to disagree of course.
Gah, you beat me to it. ;Dhttp://seeimpossible.usa.canon.com/ (http://seeimpossible.usa.canon.com/)
?
Actually, in the last Photokina, no company really announced anything spectacular. Canon a better built apsc, Nikon a variant on a present camera, Pansonic, Olympus, Sony, RED had already produced the latest models months prior and Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad were virtually silent.
Are you sure?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/09/27/photokina-interview-samsung-nx1-redefine-pro-performance-quantum-leap-tech
Here's a comment from Dave Etchells of Imaging Resource.
"Without question, the Samsung NX1 was truly one of the standout products at the Photokina 2014 tradeshow in Cologne, Germany, with top-notch performance, a sophisticated hybrid autofocus system, and an amazing "auto-shot" mode that can capture a baseball in flight at the exact moment it's coming off the bat."
And here are some comments from an interview with the Samsung senior marketing manager, Jack Kelbley:
"As we're going up in resolution, we have some advantages relative to current sensor technology in fill. Our fill efficiency is much higher than most of the industry, thanks in large part to moving to 65nm design rules for our latest sensor.
We don't have to make big, thick walls on everything. As well, when we switch to copper [replacing polysilicon for the wiring on the chip], we've moved to a much more conductive material, which helps us in heat dissipation, it helps us in reducing resistance. So we're using less material, so again, even though we're BSI, we're cutting the pixel depth even more that way, which gives us more sensitivity and efficiency. So you'll find when you actually get these to test that the high ISO noise on these is much lower than it should be, if you follow the curve down in terms of pixel pitch, because of BSI, because of copper, because of the more efficient microlenses we've put on. The microlenses on these appear to cover almost 100%
It's my understanding that we have the tightest design rules of any sensor manufacturing process used for cameras by a factor of two, and by general average probably close to a factor of four or five."
I know this camera is an APS-C or cropped format but the advances in manufacturing and major features such as the Back-illuminated design of the sensor could result in a noise performance equal to, or even greater than, any current Nikon FX. I hope so.
http://seeimpossible.usa.canon.com/ (http://seeimpossible.usa.canon.com/)
?
Hell, no!
It ain't the camera as long as the camera doesn't get in the way.An excellent put down of all the trash talk about "Great photographers can make great images with a pinhole camera make from an old shoe" vs "brand X is doomed because its cameras have 0.3% less foozbits". Most of us are not going to abandon a system or revile it, so long as it keeps giving us cameras and lenses that are far enough ahead of our skills and needs that it does not hamper our results. I would say that currently, whatever technical disadvantages Canon's sensors have compared to the best alternatives are not getting in the way of what most professional photographers are trying to do with their gear, and even less so for most amateurs.
... "When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks."...
It ain't the camera as long as the camera doesn't get in the way.
"When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks."
IMO
BC
This reminds me of the reviews explaining why the newest Intel processor PC is revolutionary.
I like eating spaghetti as much as the next guy, but more tomato sauce is just more sauce, not better sauce.
Edmund
Edmund,Ray,
The improvements sound more fundamental to me than more tomato sauce. I would describe them as the equivalent of 'whole grain' spaghetti with 3x the quantity of fibre. ;)
The kids seem to be using cellphones and gopros.
I promise this will my last response to this silly shit, but Edmund how many young photographers do you hire or even know?
Most don't own go pros, don't desire to only learn or use a dslr and actually have great hope and aspirations for a career in professional image making.
In fact most I know own a film camera and try to use it as much as possible and can afford.
You show tremendous disrespect to the beginning and accomplished professionals with your thought that photography is a democratic process (it's not) and anyone can do it well as long as they all use a device that fits in their back pocket.
I hate to break this to you but dumbing down the industry isn't going to happen. Major movies will not be shot with a go pro, or a 5d2 as a principle camera.
Major advertising campaigns will not be produced with a mobile phone at least not for another decade, unless your shooting a demo for Samsung or Apple.
There is nothing wrong with smaller devices, they have a place, some can be fun, but until you've graded thousands of hours of footage from all forms and sizes of devices, worked 10's of thousands still images in post production and participated in hundreds of creative briefs, most of your hypothesis is just random speculation. To what end I don't have a clue.
I think you should try a condom forum. That's probably more interesting.
IMO
BC
I hear Bill Gates is helping fund a thinner condom. Now, this is a man who truly appreciates the value of incremental improvement.
Exictement. Good for Canon. At least they see a need to respond. LONG OVER DUE.
I am sure Photo Expo will be interesting indeed.
(...)
Most don't own go pros, don't desire to only learn or use a dslr and actually have great hope and aspirations for a career in professional image making.
In fact most I know own a film camera and try to use it as much as possible and can afford.
(...)
I hate to break this to you but dumbing down the industry isn't going to happen.
Novoflex.
It seems that the countdown ends on Oct 7th. We will know tomorrow what this was about. Crossing fingers. ;)
What's the best F mount -> EOS adapter these days (mounting F mount lenses on an EOS body)?
Cheers,
Bernard
http://seeimpossible.usa.canon.com/ (http://seeimpossible.usa.canon.com/)
?
Still, about that Canon "impossible" teaser: a lot of people will be very disappointed if it is some amazing new photocopier.Amazing: I was joking, and yet Canon delivered even less: a new pointlessly graphics-intensive and sluggish marketing website that works miserably on mobile devices. Welcome to internet marketing 1990s style, Canon.
Amazing: I was joking, and yet Canon delivered even less: a new pointlessly graphics-intensive and sluggish marketing website that works miserably on mobile devices. Welcome to internet marketing 1990s style, Canon.
I agree.
This is just awful marketing.
Whether it's still, cinema or medical all of those catagroies offer rich emotional opportunities for content and it's produced with zero feeling.
That's sad consider the number of great artists, known and unknown that produce such compelling work (the same can be said for all brands) and offer a world of tremendous content to draw upon.
I don't blame the people that produced it, but the ones that approved it.
Somebody went so safe that they said nothing, actually took a step back.
IMO
BC
I think Canon just augmented the around-the-world frustration and converted it into something that at moments resembles anger.
Under the circumstances in which Canon customers feel about Canon lack of new significant products for the last 5 years, it was very dumb and irresponsible to have produced this marketing stunt.
I am as disappointed as everybody else but, realistically, what were the odds that Canon would reveal a breakthrough camera a few weeks after the Kina?
Cheers,
Bernard
...This feels like a nazi experiment.
Right Bernard. But they pulled it out, not their followers. Rumors abound every single day and nothing happens. This feels like a nazi experiment.
I am as disappointed as everybody else but, realistically, what were the odds that Canon would reveal a breakthrough camera a few weeks after the Kina?
Cheers,
Bernard
Good point, and accurate. Unless they simply did not want to steal the thunder of the 7D2, which was a significant upgrade -- but was very long in coming.
What a big snooze. Just a marketing website it seems. No dynamic announcements. Just flashy coding.
I switched to Canon in 1980. I'm VERY heavily invested in gear and no way I'm going to switch (two bodies and almost all "L" glass: 17-40/f4, 24-70/f2.8, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 100/f2, 135/f2, 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8). I just wish they would give me something to replace my aging 1Ds Mark III. I adore my 1Dx. One of the best cameras Canon has produced, even though it took almost a year to actually buy after it was actually introduced. But I have a guy who wants to buy my 1Ds3, and I'm stupid not to sell at this point, though I have nothing I really want to replace it with. Guess I'll just rent a backup for a while, as I need it, in hope of something happening from Canon. And hear I thought Canon's "big announcement" was going to be... well, a BIG announcement.
Just curious, not arguing... what's wrong with a 6D. It certainly is a very good pice of gear? Perhaps you have special needs?If I were to guess, it would be the (in)famous shadow noise when pushed.
... For example: http://photographylife.com/nikon-vs-canon-dynamic-range
Oh, no, that's just cruel!
Why can't you let us enjoy our files, admiring how much better today they are than ten years ago, without comparing it with what is really possible today? ;)
Baaaam! Biiiingo! Kaboooom!
This thread finally reinforced Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)! And it took only 11 pages. ;D