Where do you think Canon 'missed the boat'?

bratkinson wrote in post #15527461
Regarding controls not in the same position as previous models...How many recall when where you put your key to start your car was on the right side of the dash....but some were on the left? Or, even after moving the key to the steering column for anti-theft reasons, Chevy decided to put the key on the top right of the dash? Or the wiper controls on the dash? Or the bright-lights switch on the floor? Technology doesn't stop moving. Controls move. Deal with it.

Or Canon doesn't have this capability, or that capability, or does a not-so-good job on the other thing? Fine! Sell your Canon and buy a Nikon! They'll be happy to have you whining about what they do worse than Canon, etc.

Bottom line, there's nobody holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy Canon. Plain and simple, the grass =IS= greener on the other side of the street. Feel free to go there!

Seriously, you gotta calm down. The whole thread is about what people think Canon couldve or shouldve done better.

I'm interested in why Nikon is seen as the obvious alternative to Canon. Obviously it is in full frame, which is what a lot of you guys are working in, but what about those of us using cropped sensors?

Is there no love for Pentax?

les24preludes wrote in post #15528040
I'm interested in why Nikon is seen as the obvious alternative to Canon. Obviously it is in full frame, which is what a lot of you guys are working in, but what about those of us using cropped sensors?

Is there no love for Pentax?

Lots of people probably prefer a camera body where the manufacturer is regularly releasing new lenses filling a broad spectrum of needs. How big selection of good AF lenses do you have for that Pentax?

elitejp wrote in post #15528039
Seriously, you gotta calm down. The whole thread is about what people think Canon couldve or shouldve done better.

Exactly.

It's not intended to be 'Canon Sucks Because...', or 'I hate Canon becaue...'

I just wanted to see what people think of when they're saying "Gee, I wish my Canon had this or did that".

But I'm enjoying the education on sensors.

Canon screwed up the Canon 60Da...

Most astro-imagers modify their cameras. This removes an internal glass filter that blocks out H-alpha light. It costs $200 to have it done professionally or the brave can do it themselves.

I heard a rumor a few years ago that Canon was coming out with an astronomy camera. At first, it was just a few Canon reps at an imaging conference asking questions. Then, I was told by a reliable source that it was going to happen. This source would be the one person who knew, so I believed it. Despite the fact that most were saying it would never happen, it did.

Canon released the 60Da. I was at NEAF(Northeast Astronomy Forum)shortly after the release. I had a bunch of questions for the Canon guys, but the word was already spreading. Canon made a big mistake on this one. The replacement glass front filter they used doesn't pass nearly as much H-Alpha as custom modified or user modified cameras. This is a dealbreaker. You see, the 60Da sells at a $500+ premium. But a custom modified 60D will run you under $1000k and this will be a better camera. You see, Canon went through the effort, and then screwed it up at the last minute with a choice of bad glass. This is something you would expect Canon to know something about.

There are a few other things they screwed up. First, the 60D body wasn't the best choice to be modded. Since astro-imaging requires expensive mounts, weight is of the utmost concern. Also, we only use basic modes, no advanced features. The T3 or T3i would've been a better candidate.

As well, by not including an intervalometer in the firmware, they really demonstrated that this was a business decision. They want to sell more hardware intervalometers. It would only take one person a few hours to develop a firmware intervalometer and frankly, Canon needs this now. For all of their cameras.

I was extremely exited about this camera. I went to NEAF thinking of buying one. I don't know if the Canon reps were having a bad day, or were sick of explaining all of the shortcomings; but I found them extremely rude and dismissive. I'm still a Canon guy, but I'll be doing my own mods.

Has anyone seen the new 1Dc that's coming out? other than price that thing is awesome. It costs money to put all the bells and whistles on and make them work together. Many of us are not in a situation where we can afford it but we all want it.

mystik610 wrote in post #15527626
You can shrink down the size of the camera all you want, but when it comes to lens design, you still can't ignore physics. You can't have a zoom lens, built for a decent sized sensor, with a large fixed aperture, and high quality optics without some size. Unless some engineering breakthrough develops one day, when it comes to lenses, small inevitibly = crippled.

Same story goes for speakers btw!

I agree. I'm not asking for a small f/1.4 prime.

I'm asking for a small f/2 prime.

The way it stands now is that the physically simpler 35/2 flares more and is less sharp at f/2. This is not supposed to happen.

les24preludes wrote in post #15528040
I'm interested in why Nikon is seen as the obvious alternative to Canon. Obviously it is in full frame, which is what a lot of you guys are working in, but what about those of us using cropped sensors?

Is there no love for Pentax?

Because since the 70's, Nikon, Canon, and Minolta were the camera manufacturers of choice. That name recognition is huge. In addition, throughout the 60's and most of the 70's, just about every major photograph, and professional photographer, used Nikon (35mm format, not talking about Med/Lg format).

My Dad, and probably most Dads had one of the 'Big 3', and that carries down the genetic line.

When Canon took the lead in market share from Nikon, those with Canons always compared them to Nikons, and vise verse.

As for Minolta, I think Canon got to number one over Nikon by taking Minolta's share, and not Nikon's in the 80's/90's. That killed them.

Sony has a reputation of either being a high end manufacturer of consumer electronics, or of being a 'you're paying for the name' brand. They (IMO) are a gadget brand. They come out with new and exciting gadgets for the novice in any field. They're audio equipment was loved by the novice audiophile, but Bose, Harmon Kardon, Klipsch and a bunch of others were the choice of the educated audiophile. I think that reputation has carried over, and that's exactly in the market that they want to be. I don't know what percentage of professional tog's use, or would use a Sony for the bread and butter.

Just my 2 cents.

KirkS518 wrote in post #15528180
Sony has a reputation of either being a high end manufacturer of consumer electronics, or of being a 'you're paying for the name' brand. They (IMO) are a gadget brand. They come out with new and exciting gadgets for the novice in any field. They're audio equipment was loved by the novice audiophile, but Bose, Harmon Kardon, Klipsch and a bunch of others were the choice of the educated audiophile. I think that reputation has carried over, and that's exactly in the market that they want to be. I don't know what percentage of professional tog's use, or would use a Sony for the bread and butter.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree about the gadget brand, but Bose falls into the same category. You can buy Bose quality speakers for much less then Bose charges. They're are perceived as a high end brand because they know how to charge for it and have good retail placement, but their sound quality isn't on par with the other mid to high end audio products.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15528175
I agree. I'm not asking for a small f/1.4 prime.

I'm asking for a small f/2 prime.

The way it stands now is that the physically simpler 35/2 flares more and is less sharp at f/2. This is not supposed to happen.

35F2 IS is a little bigger, but looks pretty good optically. Quite a bit smaller than the 35L

the pancake is another option although it's not an F2 lens, so I'll never buy it. I'm sure canon will make an F2 version, hopefully stabilized as well.... that would be awesome.

pwm2 wrote in post #15528097
Lots of people probably prefer a camera body where the manufacturer is regularly releasing new lenses filling a broad spectrum of needs. How big selection of good AF lenses do you have for that Pentax?

That's an interesting question. Why is that? So many of us started off in schools with the venerable Pentax K1000 that you would think they had a captive market coming out of photo classes. That's worth an entire thread of its own....Where Pentax drop the ball?

On other news, old Nikon fanboy Ken Rockwell is now a Canon fanboy:

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

Well, Ken Rockwell puts it different ways:

The Nikon D600 is Nikon's best digital camera ever, at any price. The only bad thing about the D600 is that it has the same green color shift problem of the D800 and D4. I set:

MENU > SHOOTING > White Balance > AUTO > right click to AUTO Normal > right click to the rainbow chart > click one down to M1 > OK

and the green goes away.

No worries, set that M1 trick and the colors are fine. I'm very, very happy; I didn't think Nikon would ever actually release the D600, which is an improved, lighter-weight version of the D800 for less money than any full-frame Nikon digital ever.

les24preludes wrote in post #15529411
Well, Ken Rockwell puts it different ways:

The Nikon D600 is Nikon's best digital camera ever, at any price. The only bad thing about the D600 is that it has the same green color shift problem of the D800 and D4. I set:

MENU > SHOOTING > White Balance > AUTO > right click to AUTO Normal > right click to the rainbow chart > click one down to M1 > OK

and the green goes away.

No worries, set that M1 trick and the colors are fine. I'm very, very happy; I didn't think Nikon would ever actually release the D600, which is an improved, lighter-weight version of the D800 for less money than any full-frame Nikon digital ever.

Hilarious that you have to do some trick in order have reliable color out of "Nikon's best digital camera ever, at any price"...

Footbag wrote in post #15528222
I agree about the gadget brand, but Bose falls into the same category. You can buy Bose quality speakers for much less then Bose charges. They're are perceived as a high end brand because they know how to charge for it and have good retail placement, but their sound quality isn't on par with the other mid to high end audio products.

Oh, I totally agree - in present day. But in the 70's and 80's, Bose was a premier audio company, right there with HK, B&O, and the like. HK has also (now) faltered IMO.

I have an uncle that would cringe, and mumble "Sucker" if he heard you bought something Sony. He would go to audio stores and listen to the Sony sales pitch, then tear it apart, point by point just for fun on his lunch.

Anyway.....