SL1 enthusiasm vs. sheer idocy

[michael_h4]

<p>One of the most widely-read photography bloggers just did an interesting review of the new SL1. Normally, I take his reviews with a pound of salt and don't think twice, but this latest really irritates me. He essentially claims that the image quality from an SL1 is not noticeably different from the IQ of any of Canon's full frame DSLRs. <br /><br />Dumber still is his claim that thanks to Canon's lens correction system, an SL1 with a kit lens equals a 5D Mark III with L glass for IQ. This is the same clown who says "your equipment doesn't matter" while dedicating his site to reviewing gear.<br /><br />I'm not one to normally identify with my gear, but I find this sort of disinformation maddening. I suppose that the statements are true to this limited extent: For shooting JPEGs of one's child blowing out birthday candles to post to Facebook or print 4X6, there really isn't a world of difference.<br /><br />But for more situations than I have space to list, I personally would take an MK II, an MK III, or a 6D with some L glass every time. No disrespect to the SL1 or any other crop sensor DSLR. They're all good and all serve different needs. <br /><br />I get annoyed when I read this sort of foolishness and wonder if others feel the same way.<br /><br />Thanks for reading my rant.</p>

<p> </p>

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>He essentially claims that the image quality from an SL1 is not noticeably different from the IQ of any of Canon's full frame DSLRs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pretty much true for images in web galleries and social media, the main use for images today. No so much for large prints, images needing cropping or high ISO.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>and wonder if others feel the same way</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, massively. It riles me beyond reason when someone who shoots (say) street pontificates that a Sony Nex and a 50mm lens is all a photographer needs, <strong>as if that's all photography <em>is</em></strong>.</p>

<p>They'd struggle to shoot my motor sport, aviation or wildlife stuff with that kit - but they're obviously completely oblivious to the <em>very notion</em> that there are photographic genres out there that demand much more out of kit than do their snapshots.</p>

<p>(Well done on avoiding directly identifying "he who must not be named", incidentally. He's an idiot).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Pretty much true for images in web galleries and social media, the main use for images today. No so much for large prints, images needing cropping or high ISO.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but in the review in question, this genius dismisses as irrelevant the <em>considerable</em> difference in high ISO performance between the 5D Mk III and the SL-1 - this is downright dishonest.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>I have a certain respect for he-who-shall-not-be-named and his contrarian opinions. Perhaps what he is really saying is that with today's technology, the limiting factor on the quality of your photograph is much more likely to be the subject matter and the photographer's skill, rather than any gearheaded differences in sensors or aspherical lens elements?</p>

[lachaine]

<p>I'm subject to idocy now and then. Could someone please give me 700 bucks and force me to buy one? I promise not to use it on the dark side of the moon. It would be cheaper than buying one of those rangefinder-like fashion cameras.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>He essentially claims that the image quality from an SL1 is not noticeably different from the IQ of any of Canon's full frame DSLRs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Under good conditions, sure. I have no question this is true, depending on which lenses and which FF DSLR. The same could be true of any crop camera. Some of the most humble kit lenses (e.g. 18-55 IS) are startlingly good when stopped down a bit and set to the middle of their zoom ranges. However, the 5DIII w/ L glass is certainly going to perform better under a broad range of shooting conditions.</p>

<p>When I was young and in much better shape, I raced a Corvette from a red light -- on my bicycle. I had him for the first 3-4 feet. Then he got pissed off and was gone. The lesson? Under carefully controlled/constrained conditions, the lesser competitor can often prevail. ;-)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I get annoyed when I read this sort of foolishness and wonder if others feel the same way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, Ken's ramblings I just ignore. However, I get annoyed when I read "glass" instead of lenses, and see blind adoration for a series of lenses simply based on their manufacterer's designation (be it L, be it a gold ring, be it funny naming). I find it downright foolish to not check a lens on its own merits, within its own pricebracket, in comparisons to alternatives and for its intended use.<br>

Seriously. Assuming that whatever gets a lick of red paint and a L from the Canon marketing team is by definition a step up in IQ compared to other "glass", is as idiotic as what Ken claimed. Assuming full frame is always better under any given condition and circumstance is equally short of context.</p>

<p>So, Ken rubs people the wrong way. It's what he does. Why get worked up about it? Ed is right, he's just hammering on a point to stop looking for "upgrades to get better IQ" and instead start to focus on the actual act of making photo. And he is not all that wrong about it. It's just a pity that he's delivering the message in the way he does, because he creates a lot of misleading nonsens and rubbish in the process.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Simple solution, don't read Ken Rockwell's site, then you have nothing to get mad about. Try it. Seriously. Also stop paying attention to cable news on both the right and left. A month later come back and tell me if you feel better or not. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I have a review of the SL1 in the photo.net queue. It should appear sometime soon. It's a reasoned review with actual tests and no hyperbole. Of course it won't get quoted on other websites since it makes no outrageous statements. That's the penalty you pay for being reasonable.</p>

<p>For web images and reasonably small prints, pretty much all DSLRs are equal. The SL1 is very good, the 18-55 kit lens is pretty good and the Canon lens aberration corrections which the camera can apply to images work well.</p>

<p>So an SL1 with a kit lens <em><strong>can</strong></em> give you images that are as good as an EOS 1D X with an L series lens <em>under a set of defined condition</em>, which would include low to moderate ISO settings, lenses stopped down to the same aperture, moderate print size and optimally processed RAW images.</p>

<p>Making controversial statements increases readership and puts money in the pocket of those writing them. Doesn't matter if they distort the truth. That's not what matters. It's the dollars that count. There's no such thing as bad publicity.</p>

[robert_turner5]

<p> Sarah, I always enjoy reading your posts, but you outdid yourself today! Well done!<br>

I hope you had a chance to yell "Sorry about the ****" when he passed you! ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for reading my rant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing wrong with a good rant once in a while. You're not the first one to do so on this particular "subject" and you won't be the last.<br /> But why come here to rant about it - you could have engaged him directly and pointed out the errors of his ways to him and push him towards retracting the erroneous information. By ranting here you played directly in his hands - more traffic to his site and more power to him.</p>

<p>As others have pointed out already, even objectively he isn't totally wrong - and he is certainly entitled to voice his opinion. Up to each one to agree or disagree.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Normally, I take his reviews with a pound of salt<br />Dumber still is his claim<br />I find this sort of disinformation maddening<br />This is the same clown<br />I get annoyed when I read this sort of foolishness</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>...wonder if others feel the same way.</em></p>

<p>I gather people who, like you, voluntarily engage in all manner of activities they find unpleasant for no apparent reason. share in this type of self imposed misery. I believe the non-clinical description is being "a glutton for punishment". To what extent they, likewise, broadcast their suffering to others, I don't know.</p>

<p>That it is Ken Rockwell him you choose to be bothered by is probably incidental. It could just as easily be something else you stumbled on.</p>

[tsypkin]

<p>KR's website thrives on annoying people. I bet that we have just generated quite a few hits on his website, which was what he wants and why he writes things guaranteed to annoy people.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>why he writes things guaranteed to annoy people.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>At least he wasn't twerking on national television last week with a scantily clad teddy bear outfit for the same effect. </p>

[dogbert]

<p>I find it misleading that many in this forum claiming for "web images and fairly small prints" the SL1 will be ok. Realistically at medium ISOs you can print 13x19 print from an APS-C sensor and probably not be able to tell the difference between that and FF.</p>

[mike dixon]

Patient: "Doctor! Doctor! It hurts when I do this."

 

Doctor: "Well, don't do that."

[colin carron]

<p>I think for the readership of Ken Rockwell's website he is probably not far off the money. He also has quite a bit of small print to cover himself from the attention-grabbing headline. I see it that Ken Rockwell's site is for photographic beginners who can't tell when he is stretching the truth. For these folk, if you put a Canon SL1 into their hands, their shots would be the same as if you gave them a better camera. And in many cases with the less demanding shots that would be true of all of us.<br /> And the SL1 probably is quite a decent camera.<br /> And he has his growing family to support.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>"Beginners", "these folk"...</p>

<p>You are a photographer once you have bought the stuff and are able to elevate yourself in the club by pontificating about beginners and their cameras. Camera clubbism at its best.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Yes, I would also like to point out the accompanying article in which he does indeed compare the SL1 and the 5dIII with comparable lenses and is able to show no difference for the scene he shot, so it is not all nonsense. As many have said: in good conditions with the lenses stopped down and of equivalent quality then indeed very few of us, if any, would be able to tell the difference just by looking at the image in a blind test. You <em>might</em> see something if you were manipulating the RAW images. In extreme conditions things may be different, but most people do not spend there life taking shots then. Ken is provocative because he tends not to tell the whole story, but there is a strong thread of truth in much of what he writes.</p>

[colin carron]

<blockquote>

<p>Camera clubbism at its best.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pierre, thanks: I am honoured:-)</p>

[michael_h4]

<blockquote>

<p>But why come here to rant about it - you could have engaged him directly and pointed out the errors of his ways to him and push him towards retracting the erroneous information. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>...I rant about it here because I've found the folks on this forum to generally be knowledgeable, friendly, and with good senses of humor. Ranting among friends can generate interesting insights as well as a good laugh. See Sarah's post for a great example of both.<br /><br />Since he doesn't allow comments or reply to emails, engaging him directly is not possible.<br /><br />I do read this site regularly and will continue to do so. His occasional wit and discussions about actual photography rather than gear make for a good read. It's the half truths that annoy me. They really are a form of the same cliche: Equipment doesn't matter and a skilled photographer needs nothing but an iPhone (or insert specific kit here). <br /><br />It's true to a very limited extent. It's also lazy. </p>

[john_h.1]

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Beginners", "these folk"...<br>

You are a photographer once you have bought the stuff and are able to elevate yourself in the club by pontificating about beginners and their cameras. Camera clubbism at its best.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Beginners isn't a derogatory word and "these folk", as used here, is hardly dismissing people as annoying 'noobs'. It often does take a bit of time for people to get the most out of highly advanced cameras, Colin correctly mentioned that more advanced photographers would likely obtain similar results with the gear in question under many conditions and noted that the camera at issue "probably is quite a decent camera"<br>

<br /><br />It doesn't appear he is the one pontificating here.</p>

 

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>He essentially claims that the image quality from an SL1 is not noticeably different from the IQ of any of Canon's full frame DSLRs.</em></p>

<p>And he is absolutely correct through about ISO 800. This was pretty much true between the 5D and 40D. The 5D2 jumped ahead, but this has been true again since at least the 7D (first 18 MP APS-C). FF is a bit sharper and cleaner OOC, but not after processing. It does yield greater DR, but not dramatically so. It's not until high ISO that the FF sensors really pull ahead.</p>

<p><em>Dumber still is his claim that thanks to Canon's lens correction system, an SL1 with a kit lens equals a 5D Mark III with L glass for IQ.</em></p>

<p>What kit and L lenses are we talking about? An EF-S 50-250 isn't going to match one of the 70-200 L's. But the 18-55 IS just might match a 17-40L at f/8 after processing.</p>

<p>I can tell you from experience that you would not be able to tell apart ISO 100-800 24" prints from a Canon FF (i.e. 6D) + 17-40L and a Canon EOS M + EF-M 18-55 IS. Granted the M 18-55 is better then the EF-S version. But if you stop down to f/8 I'm guessing the same would be true there.</p>

<p><em>This is the same clown who says "your equipment doesn't matter" while dedicating his site to reviewing gear.</em></p>

<p>Because his site is dedicated to reviewing gear he should tell you that there are dramatic IQ differences where there are none? And why is he clown? Because you disagree with him?</p>

<p><em>I'm not one to normally identify with my gear, but I find this sort of disinformation maddening.</em></p>

<p>Typical. No offense, but when it comes to equipment differences photographers are drama queens. We stare at pixels at 400% in Photoshop until our eyes are crossed, then proclaim the slightest difference as what separates web snapshots from wall sized fine art prints. You can see this in all kinds of debates online: FF vs. crop; Canon vs. Nikon; lens X vs. lens Y.</p>

<p>It's human nature combined with the fact that very few photographers have ever been subjected to tests with unlabeled prints. You see the same exact phenomenon among audiophiles and wine connoisseurs. Tell someone one glass of wine came from an expensive bottle and another from a cheap bottle and they will drone on in great detail for 20 minutes about how much better the expensive one is, even if both glasses came from cheap bottles or perhaps the same bottle!</p>

<p><em>I suppose that the statements are true to this limited extent: For shooting JPEGs of one's child blowing out birthday candles to post to Facebook or print 4X6, there really isn't a world of difference.</em></p>

<p>Again, from experience: go to Zion NP. Shoot the same ISO 100-800 landscape scene with a Canon FF + 17-40L and a Canon EOS M + 18-55 IS. Process and print to 24". No one will be able to tell you which came from which. If you have a friend do this and present you with unlabeled prints, you will not be able to tell either. This is with the most challenging subject matter (distant foliage stresses resolution like nothing else) at a large print size. </p>

<p>Now if you're shooting at high ISO, the current FF sensors are amazing. At 3200 the 6D doesn't even look like it's at high ISO yet.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>People are welcome to compromise and think that their images are "just as good" but I never know what I'll do with my images when I take them. I took a scenic shot in 2007 with a Canon G7 P&S and it's so nice that I'm going to have it printed in a 20 to 30-inch range. In the same office I'll have some images taken with my 5D MkII and MkIII and they'll be around 48" on the long side. As beautiful as the G7 shot is (great colors, combined with a lucky conspiracy of red rocks, blue sky and beautiful clouds) it doesn't have the pixels needed for 48". The SL1 will close that gap even further.</p>

<p>I believe that DLO is a game changer, particularly when I apply it to my L-series zooms to bring the IQ up near to my dedicated primes. Some non-L lenses start out pretty darn good, so applying DLO may really close the gap that used to be so much more evident.</p>

<p>If you KNOW that all of your images will never go beyond FB or Flickr, then I think that SL1 will indeed do the trick, so long as you don't need faster fps or better high-ISO performance. Extra pixels will be wasted.</p>

[DickArnold]

What's the difference between my T4i and 7D. Focusing speed , Frame rate 5FPs vs. 8FPs, Focusing on moving targets particularly, number of cross Points, weather proofing, plastic vs. metal frame, etc. The T4i runs out of buffer when shooting at 5FPS after about five pics in raw. The 7d is I think above fifteen frames at 8FPS but I never got that high. I shoot sports. The 7D is great. The ISO performance on my NEX5N is better than both the APS-c Canons. My old 5D was better but LR corrects any noise at or below 3200ISO in the T4i and 7D. What's the same in the two Canons? The sensor so the pictures look pretty much the same given favorable conditions. I have never corrected focus on my L lenses for either Canon. Haven't felt the need to. My pictures get used the way they are. Daniel I have 13x19s hanging in my house from a Bronica ETRSi, an 60D, etrsi, 5D, 7D, T4i and I defy anyone to identify a camera with a picture. They all look just fine and a couple of the 60D 6MP prints have won prizes.