CANON MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO??

[robertderobert]

Am giving serious consideration to purchasing a 10D. But I have to tell you that this 5'-3", 135lb. male in very good shape is just amazed that Canon can sell a camera like this with an "L" lens (without mounted flash) that weighs as much as it does. I can only imagine how heavy and awkward the next two models up are. If you go out to cover an afternoon event or wedding it must be shear exhaustion for the photographer at the end.

Had the opportunity to look at an Olympus E-1. I don't think that its what I want in a camera at this time -- possibly in the future. But I have to say there are some very compelling arguments that justify its place in the "new digital" professional market. If you were wondering how you spell relief (from weight and mass) it might be O L Y M P U S. And no I am not an Olympus rep.

In this age of technology can you see cell phones or consumer digital cameras getting larger? I don't think so. So tell me is Canon planning to design and build a line of professional equipment from the ground up that is really not an adaptation from film -- the new digital technology? Or are the better professional cameras and lenses going to continue getting larger and heavier? What ever happened to the word
ergonomics ( weight and mass included, not just the mechanical operation) in the professional camera market?

So much for being on the soap box,
Looking to know if there is a new professional Canon digital system on the way that really takes the working photographers strength, size and agility into consideration like the Olympus E-1. Or is Canon committed to maintaining the status quo -- larger and heavier? If you read the reviews all the "Cons" mention weight -- seems like more than a few photographers are getting tired -- says something.

Comments would be appreciated from those that have had similar thoughts -- especially women and news and event photographers.

Larger and heavier isn't always better -- in more ways than one.
Photographers with cameras need to be agile and not burdened down.
This is no longer the era of Speed Graphics.

Thanks,
Robert

[CyberDyneSystems]

Hi Robert,
Welcome to the Froum :)

I have to say I agree with most of what you say here,. especially about the Olympus E1 system. Though it is severely lacking in some aspects (as a system in particular, do to it's youth) .. it is a break through design,. ahead of it's time . and clearly an indicator of the direction that DSLR WILL be heading some day...

The weight question in regards to Canon though is funny.. because many will agree with you.. but I bet here on this forum, and in a lot of the professional world,. many, if not most, will disagree..

One of the 10D's continued selling points over it's "baby sister" the 300D IS the WEIGHT, feel and "heft" which (especially when used with the BG-ED3) give it a more "solid" and "professional" feel.

Go figure :?

Anyway,. the E1 has a lot of advantages.. advantages that I am sure we will see in other systems .. some day.

Untill there is a mature and broad enough system of ths nature, we will "make do" with our "Frankenstien" 35mm turned Digital SLR systems :)

...heavy as they may be.... :)

[GenEOS]

I can take a stab at this....
Hear is one aspect....

Canon is dedicated to supporting the EOS system and mount.
It is the same for the film EOS cameras and digital EOS.
They are retro compatible to any EOS lens and future compatible to any new lenses. This is one reason I shoot Canon.

Weight is some times brought on by build quality.
Metal bodies, rigid construction, can mean it is not pocket sized.
The EOS 1 series bodies, digital and film are built for war.
"L" series lenses are built the same way. It's big and heavy, yes.
I would agree, if they can shave some weight and keep the same build quality, then that would be nice. But to make them feather weights, to just make them lighter is not neccessarily a good thing.

[Belmondo]

Obviously nobody knows what's going on in the background at Canon. As outsiders, we couldn't even find out when a camera that was announced months ago was going to be shipped. All of a sudden, they’re popping up here and there.

A smaller (read: lighter) system is almost certainly in the works---at least at the early development level. The timing of it, however, is probably yet to be determined. Canon has to hope that when (and if) it makes the investment necessary to produce an entire new line of lenses in a different format, the professional will be willing to jump onboard en masse. It is that group after all that has provided the impetus to the current EOS line even though the average EOS buyer today is just as likely to be a serious amateur as an outright professional. A new ‘professional’ line of digital cameras could easily be perceived as an abandonment of any future developments in the EOS /EF lens line.

I suspect Canon is sitting back watching Olympus and Pentax; when they see serious market penetration from the smaller format cameras, they will react accordingly. In the meantime, I doubt you’ll see any significant developments in that direction from them unless it’s a trial balloon to test the waters.

[defordphoto]

It's a balance between lens and camera. And yes, the current digital EOS line appears to be an adaptation of film cameras, they really are not. But yes, they are similar because it's what we know and it what pros and PJ's are used to. There are thousands of people with millions upon millions of dollars of lenses out there and Canon would disappear from the planet if they gave up their EOS line for some weird digital-only format.

Let the others—like Olympus—take care of that market. Canon (and Nikon) are here for the pro and semi-pro market and I don't see that changing any soon. If you want something other than that then head off to Olympus or FujiFilm-land and have at it.

Canon has their niche-market and it's be suicide to give that up for a consumer-based pipe-dream.

I'm not saying that such a plan would not be successful. There is a market out there for that, but Canon has chosen where they want to be and they're doing quite well at it, thank you very much.

It's a viable market. Just not for Canon at this point in time.

[FJC]

I'm new to DSLR, and to Canon as well, so I may not know what I'm talking about - but don't things like the new Canon DO lenses (much smaller, lighter) fit right in with what you're saying?

[cmM]

But I have to tell you that this 5'-3", 135lb. male in very good shape
Well, I'm 5'7", 130lbs, and more weight is not necessarely bad. A heavier camera (for example the 10D compared to the 300D) gives you a better grip, easier to take pics without shaking the camera too much. I would pick the 10D over the 300D in a heartbeat if I had the money. I don't, so I'll get a 300D hopefully this weekend, if not Monday (waiting for a damned money transfer to clear from the bank :evil: ) ...
Oh, and if you shoot a wedding or something the whole afternoon, your arms will hurt anyway... Try shooting for a couple hours with a SLR, and then try shooting for the same amount of time with an Elph... I wouldn't be surprised if you found the difference smaller than you expected (in muscle soreness)....

[KennyG]

I am just short of 6 foot, over 40 and not the fittest guy in the world. I treck around race circuits for up to 8 hours with a 1D, 10D and at least 3 L lenses, one of which is a 300mm F2.8L IS. Are they heavy, sure they are, but they are that way because they were built to stand some punishment from pros and semi-pro photographers. Can I cope? Of course I can, and probably will for at least another 25 or so years.

Would I like a smaller lighter camera with a featherweight lens? No I would not unless they can build them to withstand the same tortures I put my current gear through, and they were ergonomically sensible to use. The E1 is useless for my type of work and, like all that type of camera pretending to be more than it is, just can't cut the mustard for PJ or action sports work.

The 400mm DO lens does not match up to its L cousin by some way and I suspect this is what we will see from any other DO lenses that appear. Good glass is heavy and you just have to live with that fact.

A 10D without the grip is a featherweight baby and a 1D is simply a Sherman tank in a different package. I know which will bounce and which will break if dropped onto concrete. PJ's are more likely to need the Sherman tank than amateur home users, so maybe there is a market for a light body camera with a plastic few gram weight lens as well as a heavy, go anywhere in any weather, tough as they come model. I know which I will continue to buy.

[PaulB]

It does make me wonder how some modern day photographers think that Pros in the past managed to heft their 5"x4" Speed Graphics around - with glass plates in DDSs.
A camera is just a tool - you use what gets the job done. Do they make smaller, lighter hammers for smaller, lighter carpenters to knock 6" nails into 4x2s?

[defordphoto]

Oh yeah. I forgot to mention that myself (5'8" - 160lbs) and my wife (5'4" and I'm not stupid - no weight-class here) have no problem hauling our 10D's and D60's, and lenses around a racetrack all day on a three-day weekend for 8-12 hours a day.

When we shoot the boats we don't move around as much, but they run solid from 8am until 3-4pm with ONE half-hour break for lunch. I didn't think Mary'd be able to pull it off, but she stays out there the entire session(s) shooting the entire time.

Is it tiring? Darn right it is. But, it's not that bad, and heck, if a GIRL can do it... :lol:

[Mthorpe_Davies]

It looks like a few of us a tiny tinny whimps who need to buff up at the gym a bit more or even move up the weight class a bit. I'm 5'10 and weigh 210, I play rugby and I'm one of the smaller guys on the field. Big cameras look better, it's like stereos all the really good gear is big, guys like big expensive looking stuff. No serious sports or pj is going to run around with a small camera unless it's a Leica M series.

[JZaun]

The extra weight just makes a steader platform for holding on the subject. It resist movement by the operator, wind, heart beats etc. It takes more to move it because it is heaver, therefor it is steadier. This is applied to all objects. Boat, car, airplane etc. bigger is steader. nuff said.

JZ

[Tom W]

Well, with Canon (or Nikon for that matter), you have a system that will support both 35 mm film and digital. As well, a future of larger, cleaner sensors is a capability that Olympus can't match with its APS-sized sensor and lens system. Although I can see the Oly system as a good intermediate system (if it were also priced at an intermediate level), physics will limit that format as far as noise-free sensors is concerned. For quality, larger is better. That's why many pros still use medium and large-format cameras.

As for cell phones - they are disposable toys. They're smaller because they can be small and still provide the functionality of a cell phone (well, most of the functionality anyway). And when they break in 3 years, we toss them in the trash and replace them. Can't do that with well-made glass. Its simply too expensive to make a good, disposable lens.

Now, Canon's newest DO lenses might break into new weight/performance ground, providing they can be made with an image and build quality equal to their heavier "L" series counterparts.

[mjordan]

They could have made calculators, cell phones, PDA's, laptops, etc., a lot smaller years ago. But they found that most humans have to have a certain size instrument to be able to operate it effectively. Who wants to push a keyboard or touch pad with a toothpick?

It's the same with cameras. How effective would a camera be that was so small that the view finder would make up most of the body. And do you really want controls and buttons that need a stylas or real tiny fingers to work? Shoot, they could make cars a lot smaller too... but would you want to sit in it? :lol:

You guys are whimps. Some of my longer dog shows go a week and during that time I haul around a 10D with a 70-200 2.8L IS and either a D30 with a 24-70 2.8L or my EOS 3 with the 24-70, plus a bag with batteries, CF cards, Image Tank storage device, assorted other camera equipment and extra poop bags (empty). I put the 70-200 2.8L IS lens case on my belt to help save my neck and put stuff in it rather than carry it in the bag. This will go all day and usually into the evening for social functions that I photograph. You can bet I don't have any trouble sleeping at night though. :lol: I'm going to look into a belt system for this summer and fall's season of shooting. I like the idea of getting the bag off my neck.

Mike

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wimps?

And your "heavy" lens is a 70-20mm :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:


Kidding! :wink:

But seriously.. I lug a 500mm prime around all day over my shoulder.

If a 1/2 sized sensor would mean I would get the same reach with a lens half the size of the 500mm... your damn right I would like my rig to be lighter!

Smaller means more cost effective too...

[Saturn]

Hello:

Having shot with Canon since 1971, I've owned two F1's and a very old TL. All metal, with FD mounts and all. When you mounted a motor to the F1, you could drive nails with the body without any trouble. I also shot weddings with an RZ67 and handle-mounted Lumedyne flash with battery slung over my shoulder. Now the weddings are shot with a motor-driven EOS3 with flash on a bracket. I don't find the 10D with battery grip at all heavy compared to my past equipment and I would much prefer to see Canon stick with the large-flange EOS mount, and "as much metal as possible" construction. I find all current EOS bodies, digital or not, to be very ergonomically comfortable on a 10 hour shoot. They're the most durable system on the market and I'd like Canon to keep it that way.

Thanks.

[robertderobert]

Hi everyone,

Been away for a few days -- but really appreciate all the perspectives with regard to my posting.

For my entire life I have been somewhat "challenged" when it
came to: seeing over the steering wheel without a power seat or tilt wheel, lifting 36ft. wooden extension ladders, competeing effectively on college teams and confidently dating taller, long legged girls (though on the latter I have mastered some very successful techniques - first of all being genuinely nice).

When you don't quite fit the mold for the average male (5'- 7" to 5' - 9" at about 160lbs) you just have to compensate a little more.

I do like the Canon gear and hope to be purchasing the 10D in the near future. Down the road I will share some of my images with you. However I will have to modify some of my shooting techniques especially when it comes to hand held flash and long lenses -- but I will get it to work!

When it comes to not looking whimpy with 10D photographic gear+ I won't have to worry about that -- I may look a little silly -- but not whimpy (unless Mthorpe_Davies I decide to also buy that smaller
Leica M -- Leica owners don't look whimpy??? Just kidding).

I still think that that great pro-level digital cameras and lenses can be designed and produced with less mass and weight, function well for all hands and remain structurally sound. I agree that reasonable weight, mass and good balance are essential -- and do go a long way in steadying the hand for that most important shot. I also agree that current lens compatibility would be essential. But it sure would be nice to reduce some of the exhaustion.

Robert

[Andy_T]

If weight really is an issue, then get a D Rebel, the Canon 17-40/4 L, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI and the 70-200/4 L.

Seriously, this would be quite a decent outfit that is light, covers the needed zoom ranges and is cost-efficient. Throw in a 1.8/50 for low light and you're done. If you get the kit lens, you can do without the 17-40 for some time (until you crave that L sharpness).

If you go for the heavier lenses (e.g. 70-200/2.8L or 100-400 L), then the extra weight of the 10D helps to balance the camera so it's not top-heavy.

Best regards,
Andy

[ShootTechPan]

I think AndyThaler's suggestion is a very good one. You could substitute in the 10D if you need the extra control and buffer size.

Another great suggestion was to use belts designed for carrying loads; getting the weight off your neck, shoulders and spine and moving it down lower can work wonders. It's the same idea as frame packs for hiking. After all, you legs will need to support the weight either way, so why get your poor back into the equation if it's not necessary? Be careful, though... squatting can lead to some gear scuffs.

I do agree that some of the Canon pro gear is quite heavy. My arms do get tired after hauling around a 1Ds all day. It's not really heavy (come on, the LIGHTEST weight plates in a gym are often 5 pounds) but it's the weight of the camera + your arms multiplied by the time. The comment on shooting an ELPH all day isn't that far off. The monster telephotos are understandably heavy, but remember they are often used with monopods and tripods. Handholding one all day isn't really practical :)

robertderobert, I think your point is a good one, however. Though I'm sure some would disagree, there are many that wouldn't mind a lighter kit to haul around. Ironically, weight affects the snapshooter probably less than the working pro who carries the gear around for 6-12 hours.

It's not like Canon is trying to make life difficult; they made an effort to make the 1D MkII lighter than the 1Ds. DO lenses are another area... they spent a lot of money developing a lens technology whose only benefit is to reduce weight and size. The 70-200 F4L is another example; Canon already had the highly acclaimed 70-200 F2.8L, but they designed the F4 as a more portable (and affordable) lens that gives up practically nothing in terms of image quality.

As for E1-like systems, however, I'm not sure if that's the future. The E1 benefits and suffers from the same that come with a smaller sensor. It benefits from smaller (and theoretically cheaper, though it's not the case for the E1) lenses. However, it also suffers from greater noise and smaller pixel pitch, which is one major thing separating the men (the DSLRs) from the boys (the "prosumer" digicams like the Sony F828 and the Canon Pro1). By the time a full-frame DSLR is surpassing the best films in resolution (around 15 megapixels), a 15 MP sensor the size of the E1's will be choking on noise. Furthermore, the E1 body is hardly a featherweight, so it's not like the smaller sensor has translated into a dramatically smaller body.

Anyways, the E1 has its own strengths and weakenesses, and you can always do a search for that since it's been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. If there is some breakthrough in noise control and sensor design, then maybe we'll see some more pro-level cameras with reduced sensor sizes. Even so, it takes many years to build up a sufficiently broad lens selection for a new mount, and I'm not going to hold my breath and wait (no pun intended) for it.