What the hell is wrong with CANON?

yoshio · February 22, 2009

corrected segment<div>

00SXMz-111053884.jpg.2a8a6650480edeb5864d20635fd92d17.jpg

</div>

marco_hidalgo · February 22, 2009

Good examples Yoshio.

It is quite obvious that computer generated PC creates a lot of noise in the image. Pixels are forced to fill in previously non existent gaps.

Some may say this is pixel peeping, and of course this amount of noise may not be noticeable in small 10x15 cm prints. But will definitely not print nicely at 16x20 inches.

egorsic · February 22, 2009

I think that Canon makes enough different lens types for all users out there, but there is one thing I simply can't understand. Why doesn't Canon make stabilized macro lenses? By my opinion, there are very few people out there using macro lenses, that would choose a non stabilized 100 or 180mm macro over stabilized one.

dogbert · February 23, 2009

Once again someone criticizes Canon and once again all the usual fanboys come out to defend their beloved camera company.

The plain facts are Canon has gone from being totally dominant in DSLR technology and the 200 pound gorrilla in 2003, to being behind Nikon in sales for several years. Quite an achievement for a company that was the number one slr manufacturer for more than a decade. The Canon fan club can say what it wants, but the market has spoken. IMO it has not been just one decision by Canon that has seen them slide to second place but a culmination of decisions, reflecting the poor judgement that can creep in when a company has been number one for too long and doesn't know where to go.

Among Canon's poor decisions over the last few years in no particular order include:

<ul>

<li>The EF-S mount - why have a seperate mount when a 22 mp camera could still produce a 12 mp crop using a "digital specific" lens - Nikon got this right;</li>

<li>The 16-35 L mark II and 14 f2.8L Mark II, which got beaten straight out of the starting blocks by the Nikon 14-24;</li>

<li>Backing off on ring USM technology when they invented it - why doesn't it feature in the 70-300 IS or the 18-200 IS, when the Nikon equivalents have this?</li>

<li>Not migrating weather sealing down to prosumer level cameras;</li>

<li>The 5D mark II - 3 years in the waiting and all we got was a megapixel upgrade and a bunch of things that could be already done in software or had already debued on the 50D. It still has the same evaluative metering as the $200 EOS300 of 2000 and only one cross-sensitive AF point. Why no EOS 3D, why not an affordable FF 7D?</li>

<li>The 1D3 and 1.3 crop cameras, made obsolete within a week as soon as the D3 was announced.</li>

<li>A-TTL, ETTL, and ETTL-II - rather than revamping flash algorythms every few years just to prove the last lot did not work very well, why not just get it right the first time as Nikon did with its SB flash system.</li>

<li>Producing ever more esoteric lenses such as the 50 f1.2, 200 f2, 800 f5.6 and these tilt shifts., while persisting with over-priced, underperforming lenses such the 17-85 IS in key segments of the market. Nikon has had about ten 18-xx mid-range zooms in the interim.</li>

<li>DO technology - whatever happened to them?</li>

<li>ECF - whatever happened to that?</li>

<li>Darth Vader styling on their DSLRs</li>

</ul>

ron_uriel · February 23, 2009

Ernest, most macro shots are taken using a tripod. For that, you don't need a stabilized lens (actually you should avoid using stabilization option when the camera is mounted on a tripod). The extra stops IS will give you don't make the diefference for macro shots.

dogbert · February 23, 2009

BTW most architecture and travel photography is for real estate and travel brochures respectively which is not terribly demanding resolution wise. Serious landscape photographers are mostly using MF or LF film or MF digital.

I assume these lenses are mainly aimed at studio product photography. I am not sure how big that market is. Probably not as big as the market for an affordable 35 f2 with USM or an affordable EF-S 18-60 f3.5-4.5 USM IS, like the digital version of the old 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM but with Canon's new cheap IS thrown in.

mai_le · February 23, 2009

Well said, Geoff !

jonny_mac · February 23, 2009

Geoff,

Sounds like you want to switch to Nikon. They seem to fit you better. I wouldn't wait for Canon to answer your needs as they have their own ideas.

Personally like some of the others, I would rather have the TS lenses just announced than some of the choices in the OPs post. Guess that's why competition is good!

keith reeder · February 23, 2009

Once again someone criticizes Canon and once again all the usual fanboys come out to defend their beloved camera company.

</blockquote>

And the usual moaning malcontents without the stones to take the obvious "right" step for them and get out from under such an apparently terrible company, crawl out from under their rocks and jump on the whiners bandwagon...

I moved from Nikon to Canon as a result of the utterly appalling D200 and haven't regretted it for a minute since - the lesson there being that I realised that bitching on internet forums wasn't going to make my Nikon gear work the way I wanted it to, so I put my money where my mouth was and got out .

Definitely one of the smartest decisions I've ever made. Nothing Nikon makes now - bodies or lenses - fits my needs as well as what Canon is doing; Nikon gear certainly doesn't produce a better end-result; and it surely doesn't make getting there any easier.

Remind me again why Nikon is so great?

Oh, and although I can't be bothered to pick apart the rest of your bulleted list of irrelevant trivia (although the suggestion that the 200mm f/2.0 and 800mm f/5.6 are "esoteric" is preposterous ), but the award for the daftest thing I've read today goes to:

The 1D3 and 1.3 crop cameras, made obsolete within a week as soon as the D3 was announced.

</blockquote>

By what possible measure did the D3 make the Mk III obsolete? Because the Noink is full frame?

Stuff full frame. The Mk III is my dream camera, and your obvious bias won't change that - and in terms of IQ all the smart money favours the MK III over the D3.

For God's sake just sell up and buy into Nikon - you'll soon see that the grass isn't as green over there as you think...

dogbert · February 23, 2009

Sorry if my post seems like a whine. It was not meant to be, rather a semi serious analysis of what has taken Canon from being totally dominant in DSLR sales just a few years ago to second place.

We can all bitch and moan with if the grass is greener BS then why don't you switch, but that is not the point. The fact is that Canon despite the biggest lens lineup and the most comprehensive system has fallen out of favour with the buyers.

Now either you think this is just a random occurence or maybe just maybe it has something to do with Canon's strategic direction.

jonny_mac · February 23, 2009

Geoff sorry the market statistics don't necessarily mean that Canon is doing something "wrong." Nikon is filling a need with their lineup. People that want great low light sensitivity in a 12mp camera like the D3 and D700 think Nikon is great. Does that mean Canon is off the mark with the 5d mark II with it being 22mp? Well for me the Canon makes more sense. I shoot mainly landscape and portrait type shots and love the ability to crop and still have a high res picture, you can't do that with the Nikon. The 5dII has pretty darn good light sensitivity as well. The point is there is no right or wrong, they are just different. I would rather have the video than a faster AF like the 1d3. They might be right or wrong for *you*. If so, then switch. That doesn't mean it's wrong for me. I could give a rats ass about a 200-400, but I think the new 17 TS lens is pretty cool. Obviously the OP doesn't think so. Who's right?

Nikon is offering a different direction. For some it makes sense. For some sticking with Canon makes sense. There wasn't much of a choice before but now there is.

mark_pierlot · February 24, 2009

It's the photographer who produces the photograph, not the gear s/he's using. This obvious point seems rather unobvious in this vitriolic thread.

If we grant that Canon and Nikon produce the best SLR bodies and lenses, then it's quite arbitrary which system we buy into. Our technique and compositional abilities have much greater effect on our images than does our gear. If you see a great photograph, the last thing on your mind is which body and lens was used to produce it.

I use Canon gear because the first SLR I bought was an AE-1, and I've always been happy with FD bodies and lenses and, more recently, with EOS bodies and EF lenses. Had my first body been a Nikon, I undoubtedly would be a Nikonian today. It's that simple, and that arbitrary...

ron_uriel · February 24, 2009

Thumbs up for Mark's words. Come on guys, the Nikon-Canon debate is soooooo Passe.

chrisjb · February 24, 2009

Dunno who started the canon vs nikon Again.( to long a thread to bother) .don`t matter which brand used, end result should be the same, Niks just made a darn fine lens in 14 24, maybe canon will equal it, but meantime the lens can be used on canon anyway, so same result as usual :)

g dan mitchell · February 24, 2009

BTW most architecture and travel photography is for real estate and travel brochures respectively which is not terribly demanding resolution wise. Serious landscape photographers are mostly using MF or LF film or MF digital. I assume these lenses are mainly aimed at studio product photography. I am not sure how big that market is. Probably not as big as the market for an affordable 35 f2 with USM or an affordable EF-S 18-60 f3.5-4.5 USM IS, like the digital version of the old 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM but with Canon's new cheap IS thrown in.

</blockquote>

One of my responses to an earlier point about making 16 x 24 (or whatever big size it was) prints of architectural subjects shot with a TS on a DSLR was going to be along the lines of "shouldn't you be thinking about MF?"

Sort of in line with your response, I think?

And my only contribution to the tired and worthless "Nikon v. Canon" debate is what I always write: Outstanding photographers use the excellent systems from both Canon and Nikon (and others) to produce wonderful photography, and it is impossible to tell which brand was used by looking and the photographs.

Let it go, folks. :-)

Dan

david_b15 · February 25, 2009

I recant my initial post.

After much reading and a new understanding of the tilt/shift lenses, i would have to say that I would actually want one.

Except for the price they really are pretty neat lenses with amazing capabilities and optical quality.

philip_wilson · February 25, 2009

I am glad to see Canon is still making niche lenses one of the things that attracted me to Canon from Pentax back in 1980 was their lens range. I would be very disappointed if all they made were better mainstream lenses (e.g EF-S 18-55 or 18-250 stuff). I am however continually surprised by the desire for IS on lenses. Most optical tests suggest that IS degrades performance (how can it not) for example the 70-200 F2.8 IS is bigger, heavier more expensive and optically slightly poorer than the 70-200 F2.8 without IS. That said i do not object to the production of IS lenses and indeed I quite like the feature on my 300 F2.8 where handholding can get difficult in poorer light. I am surprised that people want in on shorter lenses (the 70-200 is a grey area). I use the 24-70 F2.8 and can see why it may be desirable but almost never need it and would prefer to spend the $500 premium on a prime lens rather than IS ( I calculate the $500 premim on the difference between the 70-200 F4 and F2.8 pairs it is $500 for the F4 pair and $510 for the F2.8 pair). When I see people looking for it on the 135 F2 and 35 F1.4 and 85 F1.2 I am quite surprised as these lenses on a DSLR are so fast that you can shoot at LV 1-3 handheld at their widest aperture and ISO 1600 (which even today is very good on a 5DII or similar and is likely to get better in the future). Since this is a the lightlevel of room lit by a Christmas tree i am wondering what people want to shoot. can someone who is looking for the extra three stops (i.e the kind of light provided by the aurora borealis) explain what they are trying to shoot that needs IS on these super fast lenses. This is half joking but half serious - I am really intrigued to understand the application of an 85 F1.2 IS. I have had the FD 85 F1.2 for many years (it is a really great lens) but even with Velvia 50 generally don't find that I need a faster lens. I can see that my aperture selection gets limited in low light buy over the years I almost never use this lens above F8 and generally shoot it below F2 - I can make similar comments about the 135 F2 which is another great lens.

dogbert · February 25, 2009

Philip

One of the problems with this post is that most people assume that their needs are the same as everyone else. I tend to shoot travel, landscape and scenics. Most of the time I am trying to simulataneously maximise depth of field and shoot at the lowest possible ISO, ideally without a tripod. IS helps with this, which is why I would like it on every lens including fast primes or even better built into the body. Though admittedly I don't have a great need for speed.

philip_wilson · February 26, 2009

OK - now I understand. I also shoot a lot of landscapes although I tend to use wide angle or MF more. Over the years I have shot many with the 85 F1.2, 24 F2, 14mm f2.8, 35 F2 and 135 F2. Some of these lenses I have in FD fit, some in EOS and a few in both. Generally is use Velvia 50 but the only time I really have light issues is for sunrise or sunset - in this situation I generally take a tripod. My main issue is that I don't mind it when canon gives me the choice of IS or no IS on these type of lenses but I am concerened that we get to a situation where they all have IS and we pay $500 more for a lens that probably does notlast as long. I suspect that lenses like the EOS 85 F1.2 will not last as well as FD 85 F1.2 as it does not appear to be as well constructed and has a lot more electronics - the complexity of IS looks like something that will reduce the working life of a lens. In addition some of these lenses are not very good at small apertures - the FD 85 F1.2 is much better at F8 than it is at F16.

dogbert · February 26, 2009

Problem solved if they put IS in the body. Seems to be cheap to do. Judging from Pentax seems to add $50 to $100 cost to the body at most. Seems to work well for lenses up to 200mm.

People replace bodies fairly often and you get the latest IS each time. Many of Canon's lenses still have first and second generation IS from the 1990s.

Canon only charge $500 for IS in lenses where they think they can get away with it such as 70-200 Ls. The 18-55 IS costs about $15 more than they old 18-55 and has better optics too.

Sign In

What the hell is wrong with CANON?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in