What has happened to the Canon Forum?

[dcstep]

<p>Maybe if Canon started selling a phone...</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p> <em>hate</em> serif fonts!)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A serif font is much easier to read as any typeface expert will tell you. Although with the web, where instant magnification is available easily, it's not such a big deal. I agree about the 700 pixel limit. I think this should be doubled. I am not convinced about the dark background myself: it may make the pictures look better, but I always think anything other than black text on white looks amateurish. How about dark gray for picture threads and white for the rest? The interface on photonet is still the best there is for these kinds of sites. It's easy to follow threads and know where you are with them.</p>

<p>We all have plenty of other places to visit on the web and photography has been much more democratized: for better or worse.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>A serif font is much easier to read as any typeface expert will tell you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Any typeface expert" won't, Robin - it's an <em>old</em> argument, and it's an <em>argument - </em>there's no absolute consensus. And besides, it's an argument which is only relevant to paper print, as you suggest.</p>

<p>Much has been written about the enhanced readability of sans serif for online text:<br /> http://www.awaionline.com/2011/10/the-best-fonts-to-use-in-print-online-and-email/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A 2002 study by the Software Usability and Research Laboratory concluded that:<br /> <br />1. The most legible fonts were Arial, Courier, and Verdana.<br />2. At 10-point size, participants preferred Verdana. <em>Times New Roman was the least preferred.</em><br />3. At 12-point size, Arial was preferred and <em>Times New Roman was the least preferred.</em><br />4. The preferred font overall was Verdana, and <em>Times New Roman was the least preferred.</em><br /> <br />So here are your marching orders:<br /><br />For easiest online reading, use Arial 12-point size and larger. If you're going smaller than 12 points, Verdana at 10 points is your best choice. If you're after a formal look, use the font "Georgia." And for older readers, use at least a 14-point font.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I admit that I'm rather bothered by the lack of font consistency too - the threads themselves are serif, but much of the site isn't, and that jars, to be honest. One of the first things I was taught twenty-odd years ago when I first studied web design, is that font consistency matters, and that a mix of fonts is never a good idea. I agree to this day.</p>

<p>I don't think <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/reports/motorbikes-at-croft">my website</a> looks particularly amateurish, incidentally, and what else it doesn't look is twenty years behind the times..!</p>

<p>(There'd be a smiley here, if we had smileys!)</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>PF, your friend is a natural talent. She nailed you dead center in the frame, and the antennae growing ceiling-ward from your pate are all but unnoticeable. Who's counting the megapixels? The table clutter tells of an enjoyable evening shared by friends, and unselfconsciously captured with a pocketable device. This shot is unlikely to ever be printed, destined instead for viewing only on tablets with un-calibrated colorspaces and displays. It is, in short, a whole different genre of photography, the counterpart to the wedding photographer's stiffly formal, carefully lit, casual portrait.</p>

<p> </p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Another argument against serif fonts, this time from an accessibility point of view. Sufferers from Dyslexia struggle - sometimes seriously - to process and understand content in a serif font:<br>

http://www.iansyst.co.uk/about-us/resources/directory/article/articles/2012/10/18/fonts-for-dyslexia?utm_source=Typeface%2Bfor%2BDyslexia&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=Traffic%2BMigration</p>

<p>Partly because of UK anti discrimination legislation, all UK government websites uses sans serif fonts, explicitly to address the problems caused to Dyslexics by serif fonts.</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Keith: I just don't agree with you! Dyslexia sufferers should not rule the world of design.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>I'm not asking you to agree, Robin.</p>

<p>But the fact (and that's the word) is that there's no compelling case for serif fonts on websites. None. There's also no debate about them putting people off - and not just people with cognitive disabilities.</p>

<p>It's <a href="http://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/basics/readability/">utterly basic web design</a>: not too many fonts, not too many font sizes, and sans serif for readability.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>For me photonet just became dull. Philosophical questions, speculative questions, or questions about what I should choose (which is really asking what have others experiences been with said equipement) are all viewed unfavourably on Pnet. Yet to me they are more interesting than the " my 70-200 AF seems to need some microadjustment" questions.<br>

Responders of seem to often treat their posts as a contest to either humiliate the OP, or to slug it out with others who may have a different opinion.<br>

How many answers do we see that tell the OP to search, as if the responder's precious time is being wasted, yet the responder has nothing better to do in the first place than hang out on an interent forum?<br>

I used to hang out here for recreation, but it is too hostile these days for that.</p>

<p> </p>

[nico_morris]

<p>Somehow I still end up using both of the two big name camera systems, so from reading around a lot on forums like this and dpreview I find that the development in Canon sensors has been stagnating for years; enthusiasts were drip-fed incremental improvements over the 10-50D line but at least it was something. The Sensor in the 7D has appeared in what, the 60D, 600D, 650D, 700D and I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere else as well? What new is there to talk about? On the other hand, the pros with the 1D line tend to be too busy actually taking pictures with their cameras to talk about them. That leaves the 5D line if I remember correctly.<br>

The flavour of internet Canon forums seemed to be lapse into childish brand-competitiveness when Canon actually had some specifications to crow about. Now it's something of a relief I don't have to wade through so much of this to find anything useful.</p>

[seragram]

<p>Trolls and know it all have killed traffic. Same thing happened to CB radios in the 80's</p>

[rlconzatti]

<p>Well I just got back from a 3 week tour group in England, Ireland and Scotland. The majority of people taking photos where using cell phones or point and shoot cameras ( dang I missed that picture too ,have to download that one from the web.) At first they thought that I was crazy packing my 12lb kit around then by the end of the tour a few of them where asking what to buy. I think that the culture is changing away from the dslr's to cell phones ( samsung has a zoom lens on their new one) or to using tablets and playbooks and cell phone all in wonders. Few people print them out and only view them infrequently on their computers. Even our local camera shop is now going to change hands to carry only higher end equip for enthusiasts and pro's and getting rid of the lower consumer grade cameras. <br>

Just off topic my 17-85 died in London on day two. I went to Jessops and they didn't have any stock but Camera world just off of Oxford street were wonderful and set me up with a 15-85 quickly and with no muss.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>Possibly people moved to Photography on the Net forum or the forum on Canon Rumors. Both sites seem more active. Though I prefer photo.net.</p>