Canon ad, has it come to this?

<p>I just saw this ad on TV for a D-Rebel. In it a mother is taking pictures of her family with a D-Rebel. She is holding the camera out in front of her like a P&S. Canon has just reduced a T2i to a P&S. I'm a big boy. I understand that the ad's sole purpose is to sell cameras. I know they want to make the DSLR less intimidating to P&S users. But is this the way to do it? Would you advise a beginner to shoot that way under normal shooting conditions? If you wouldn't, should Canon?</p>

<p>If it's an inappropriate way to hold the T2i, then I think Canon is engaged in slightly false advertising and trying to appeal to the way that a majority of camera owners hold their cameras to take photographs these days.</p>

<p>doesn't matter. it's the image they're trying to project; that the D-Rebel is easy to use as a P&S and you gotta see the user's happy smiling face and you won't if they viewfinder is up to the eye.</p>

<p>Take your photographer hat off and put your marketing hat on.</p>

<p>It's also possible that they're showing the camera being used to record video - something that requires a look at the rear LCD, instead of the optical finder. I spent a day working along side a group of US Army combat photographers, out shooting an emergency drill. They were shooting stills and video all day, and happened to be using 5DMKII bodies. Fresh from training by Canon reps, as a matter of fact.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I think Canon is engaged in slightly false advertising</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like pretty much every new dSLR for a number of years, the camera has live view. How could that constitute false advertising?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you wouldn't, should Canon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What does what I do have to do with what Canon shows in an ad?</p>

<p>[[. Canon has just reduced a T2i to a P&S.]]</p>

<p>why do you care so much how other people use their cameras?</p>

<p>Think about it... TV advertising is meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. So it makes total sense to promote an SLR as being as easy to use as a P&S.<br>

There's a good reason it's called the "boob tube".</p>

<p>If someone is making photos that they enjoy, who am I to tell them how to hold or use a camera? Now, if the way they are holding or using a camera is causing them to not get photos that they want and they ask for my help, then I am glad to suggest other methods that might help.</p>

<p>Aside from that, I'm with Rob. How others use their cameras matters little to me. I care about how I use mine.</p>

<p>It is not that he cares how others use the camera. He just doesn't wan to be associated with that crowd.</p>

For many beginners it is a good idea to compose the shot on the LCD panel than through the viewfinder. The flat LCD is more two dimensional, reflective of the final photo than the viewfinder. A telephone pole growing out of the subject's head is much more noticeable on the flat LCD.

<p>I shoot a lot of particular subjects with my face well away from the camera, often at arms length - its the only way I can see the action happening and have a chance of nailing it. If my eye was to the finder I'd miss all of it. With my eye away from it, I still miss a bit, but nail a lot.</p>

<p>I've seen quite a few people using their consumer-level DSLRs this way. With the light weight of the body and kit lens, and the incorporation of IS, they may as well, if it makes them comfortable. Odds are, these are just being used as glorified P&S cameras, often enough by people who want the image of having a "nice camera" despite not knowing how to really use it. But in the end, it's their money, and if they're happy with the snaps they take, then the tool did its job.</p>

I like the Canon ad where the fake director talks about making his fake movie (couple chased by police jumps off of a bridge). Note the word DRAMATIZATION displayed prominently during the 'interview'. I would rather have had them interview the

director of photography for the ad itself. The ad is beautiful, and who knows? Maybe it was even shot on Canon

gear.

<p>The next big thing in DSLR's seems to be bigger, and movable (`90 angle) LCD screens. So I believe it is inevitable that "chimping" will come to DSLR's.</p>

<p>I don't think that "arm's length", is the most stable platform for photography?</p>

<p>Yep, those are points of view (marketing, live view, video) that I hadn't considered.</p>

<p><em>So I believe it is inevitable that "chimping" will come to DSLR's.</em></p>

<p>All DSLRs have an LCD screen thus chimping on DSLRs is nothing new. What does change is the agressive marketing and ads for these lowest-end d-Rebs and similar.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is not that he cares how others use the camera. He just doesn't wan to be associated with that crowd.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't want to be associated with any crowd except the ones I'm associated with, none of which are in TV ads. I don't see how what a TV ad says has any bearing on an individual's life unless they're so much of a fanboy that they can't separate and ad from their own life.</p>

<p>Digital photography, is the greatest sales booster the camera industry has ever seen! Prior to it's domination, one needed a new film body about every 40 years. Digital camera's give you the best 2-3 years of their short lives, before obsolescence rears it's ugly head. They're what's called "an ad man's dream".</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>Digital camera's give you the best 2-3 years of their short lives, before obsolescence rears it's ugly head.</blockquote>

<p>Utter bull! What we have seen in the last 15 years for digital P&S and 11 years for affordable DSLRs is the entire life history for these cameras. The rapidity of maturation in this category has been astonishing. </p>

<p>We now have 20+ MP full-frame DSLRs and 15+ MP APS-C DSLRs. The reason to upgrade has lessened. I get better prints from my 3 year old DSLR than I do from my collection of 35mm film SLRs.</p>

<p>A survey from my photography magazine collection going back 140 years shows a continuing push by manufactures to entice new purchases. </p>

<p>How many photography enthusiasts do you you know purchased 1 film camera 40 years ago and hasn't upgraded their now obsolete film camera?</p>

 

<p>I had a film camera (Nikon F100) for about 6-7 years, and it was the best value in film cameras that I've ever had (especially when combined with the Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 lens). Then I got into digital, and I've had four digital cameras during the same 6-7 year period. The new purchases were made primarily because new features not available on the previous camera were deemed by me to be sufficiently desirable to upgrade. Personally, I've spent far more on digital than I ever did on film, far more than if I had just stuck with 35mm film and the cost of film with processing. Still, I don't regret the switch, and I feel I'm getting better technical results from my current digital SLR than I was getting from 35mm slides. However, I find the notion that film photography is expensive compared to digital to be ridiculous, at least it was for me when I upgraded to get new technical capabilities in the rapidly evolving field of digital photography.</p>

<p>Canon used to have National Football League sample photos taken with a *kit* lens in their ads. Using a AF 300mm f2.8 lens, I've probably never matched the action shots taken with that Canon *kit* lens, but that's life, I guess.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm afraid I missed the ad, and therefore am not qualified to comment. I got rid of my TV in 1996, and should've done it decades sooner. Then such trivial issues would never have entered my consciousness. :-)</p>

<p>Matt, you may be right about the woman in the ad shooting video. I don't shoot video so that never occured to me.</p>

<p>I think in the commercial that the woman was shooting video, thus using the LCD was not only appropriate but the only way most SLRs work.</p>

<p>(now if Josh wasn't on this thread, I might be tempted to say something like, "besides isn't the Rebel really just a point and shoot anyway")</p>

<p>Seriously though, camera shake is more an issue handholding on the LCD and I find composition actually harder, I typically do most of my tripod based photography these days with the help of Live View. I also tend to critically focus my fast manual lenses using the high res LCD zoomed in at max apertures where DOF is quite narrow and missing critical focus by an inch (as in the nose rather than eyes) will almost certainly mean a lost shot. Live View is a tool, avoid it if you want, but don't be surprised if people are getting shots you aren't because they embrace useful additions to their arsenal of techniques.</p>

<p>You extend your arms out till the neck strap tightens! This will help to get steady videos.</p>