Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 29 Dec 2016 (Thursday) 18:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is it my imagination but is there a lot of Canon bashing?

 
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,343 posts
Likes: 1753
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jan 12, 2017 06:55 |  #76

Dlee13 wrote in post #18240883 (external link)
Personally I don't think Canon did anything wrong. In the consumer market they may appear to be behind Sony (I only mention them since they make Nikons sensors), but you have to remember they have many other ventures. They make security cameras and those huge megapixel sensors that they show off are the types of products that will get them government contracts for surveillance and make them big money which is probably where a lot of their focus is.

In this day and age being a segment of a larger company is a negative, not a positive. As you point out, Canon makes a lot of money in other sectors. As soon as the optical sector stops performing, there is a high likelihood that it gets sold or torn apart for it's value. The only thing keeping it alive is that it is still making money. As an example, look at Motorola. It use to have a solid auto, semiconductor, mobile phone, and network sector as well as public radios. All were sold and not the company is a shell of its former self and they are not the only example.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,048 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1823
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Jan 12, 2017 09:13 |  #77

h14nha wrote in post #18241712 (external link)
Sony are commited to making/developing camera SENSORS.

Fixed it for ya. Their glass Sucks :-P :pvmad


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h14nha
Goldmember
Avatar
2,015 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 100
Joined Nov 2008
Location: South Wales, UK
     
Jan 12, 2017 18:55 as a reply to  @ umphotography's post |  #78

Curious, what Sony lens have you experience of using, and why do you think they suck ?.


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / :D Fuji X Pro1 / XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,154 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2923
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 13, 2017 00:03 |  #79

h14nha wrote in post #18242571 (external link)
Curious, what Sony lens have you experience of using, and why do you think they suck ?.

I realize your question was not directed at me, but I have views that are probably similar to Dave's, so I'll try to provide an answer from my perspective.

I don't think that Sony's glass sucks. I actually wouldn't know if it sucks or not, because I have never used any of it. But I do think that Sony's lineup is pretty lame, as there are huge gaps in their lens lineup that basically seem to leave hardcore wildlife photographers and sports shooters out of the loop.

Most wildlife photographers want and need glass that is very long and very fast, relative to the focal length. Most sports action shooters have the same needs. That is why Canon and Nikon have sundry offerings in long focal lengths - a 200-400 f4, 400 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4, and an 800 f5.6. Sony's lineup doesn't have much at all to choose from when it comes to these true super-telephotos. So while the glass that they do have may be quite good, the fact that they leave such huge gaps in their overall lineup could be something that somebody describes as "sucking".

If you're shooting rapidly moving targets in AI servo mode at 8 or 10 or 12 frames per second, it really is best to shoot natively; adaptors and reverse-engineered autofocus systems can hinder focus speed and accuracy when it comes to these extremely challenging autofocus situations.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h14nha
Goldmember
Avatar
2,015 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 100
Joined Nov 2008
Location: South Wales, UK
     
Jan 13, 2017 03:14 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #80

https://www.google.co.​uk …0#imgrc=v2ZWEEL​rvUoX1M%3A (external link)

Would this be ok for wildlife for you Tom ? ? ? :lol:
Sony has a 300/2.8 and a 500/4 as well as 70-400 zooms. They also have Minolta glass available. When they started out they were slated for their lack of glass. That really doesn't apply anymore. Sony, Zeiss, Sigma, all producing superb offerings. Canon has a 600/4 and 800 /5.6 but only recently released the 200-400 themselves.
For wedding shooters they have eye AF and a variety of quality primes, so Im still interested in why he thinks their glass sucks.

I recently went the Fuji route, mainly for the small primes. My Canon bag was far too heavy having young children. The Canon M5 looks nice but the M series have been out for years and has poor offerings of fast glass. My XT-1 plus 56/1.2 recently cost me approx £1300. Canon have no answer to that.
Fuji will suffice for the next few years.


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / :D Fuji X Pro1 / XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ P
Goldmember
Avatar
1,874 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 120
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada
     
Jan 13, 2017 07:25 |  #81

I someone bashes Canon to me, I simply ask them what cameras and lenses they see most of the pro sports shooters using. Just look into the camera bay and tell me what gear you see them using. Mostly Canon, some Nikon, not much else.


1Dx - 5DIII - 40D - Canon 24-70LII, 100L macro, 135L, 16-35L, 70-200 f4 and 100-400L lenses

- "Very good" is the enemy of "great." Sometimes we confuse the two.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,247 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 387
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
     
Jan 13, 2017 08:02 |  #82

John_T wrote in post #18228108 (external link)
...you forgot Intel vs. AMD, Win vs. Mac et cetera ad infinitum.

It's another of those things humans do, out of frustration over fear of failure at mating rights and desperation to at least give the appearance of having more survival units than the other guy.

And the Yankees vs. the Bosox and the Mets vs. the Phillies. Somebody else feel free to add football, hockey and basketball analogues.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,247 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 387
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
     
Jan 13, 2017 08:12 |  #83

I recall a conversation I had with a NY Daily News photographer years ago on an assignment we shared. This was when Canon had the only CMOS sensors. He was a Nikon shooter. He ranted and raved about how Nikon had dropped the ball and how disgusted he was with them. He envied my 20D.

The pendulum swings.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,918 posts
Likes: 2677
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited over 1 year ago by Bassat.
     
Jan 13, 2017 09:21 |  #84

James P wrote in post #18243010 (external link)
I someone bashes Canon to me, I simply ask them what cameras and lenses they see most of the pro sports shooters using. Just look into the camera bay and tell me what gear you see them using. Mostly Canon, some Nikon, not much else.

I make two trips a year to Wrigley. From where I sit, I can't see brand names, but more than half the lenses I see are large, and white.

P.S.: I'm pretty sure I won't be able to afford ANY seats at Wrigley this year. :)

EDIT: Cleveland isn't much further than Chicago. Bet I could get some seats there. (Donning helmet and body armor now.)


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,154 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2923
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Tom Reichner. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 13, 2017 11:03 |  #85

h14nha wrote in post #18242891 (external link)
https://www.google.co.​uk …0#imgrc=v2ZWEEL​rvUoX1M%3A (external link)

Would this be ok for wildlife for you Tom ? ? ? :lol:

No, I don't see anything there that interests me. At all. It looks like that page only has Minolta lenses on it. I didn't know that Minolta still makes lenses, so as far as I know these are outdated pieces that may struggle to provide the type of autofocus speed and accuracy that one needs in extremely challenging conditions.

In fact, the only lenses I really have any interest in acquiring at the moment are the Canon 600mm f4 version 2 and the Canon 200-400/560 f4.

Within the past few years, Canon seems to have perfected their optics, and the very latest versions of their super-telephotos are sharper than even when used wide open - this level of wide open sharpness is something that even Canon did not have on most of their long glass 5 or 6 years ago.

If I'm so picky that not even a Canon 600mm f4 v1 from a few years ago is of any interest to me, then I am certainly not interested in any Minolta lenses from who knows when.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,918 posts
Likes: 2677
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jan 13, 2017 11:10 |  #86

I'm with Tom. I went with Canon when I went digital because of the quality of the glass available. That has only gotten better. If the 5D4, 1DX2, and 80D are any indication, the cameras are improving, too. Win-win in my book.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,752 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4994
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 13, 2017 11:12 |  #87

James P wrote in post #18243010 (external link)
I someone bashes Canon to me, I simply ask them what cameras and lenses they see most of the pro sports shooters using. Just look into the camera bay and tell me what gear you see them using. Mostly Canon, some Nikon, not much else.

well, Canon certainly caters to wildlife and sports photographers....


that wont help landscape/travel photographers :twisted:

not the best casual camera system around


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,918 posts
Likes: 2677
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jan 13, 2017 11:15 |  #88

Charlie wrote in post #18243227 (external link)
well, Canon certainly caters to wildlife and sports photographers....

that wont help landscape/travel photographers :twisted:

not the best casual camera system around

Blanket statements rarely have any meaning. Care to elaborate?


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,752 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4994
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 13, 2017 11:19 |  #89

Bassat wrote in post #18243230 (external link)
Blanket statements rarely have any meaning. Care to elaborate?

it was in response to being a sports shooter, what's to elaborate?


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,154 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2923
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Tom Reichner. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 13, 2017 11:38 |  #90

Charlie wrote in post #18243227 (external link)
not the best casual camera system around

Charlie wrote in post #18243238 (external link)
it was in response to being a sports shooter, what's to elaborate?

You could explain what you mean by "casual system". I'd be interested in knowing what a casual system means to you, and what kinds of shooting you classify as casual, as opposed to those types of shooting that are, well, not casual. Terms like "casual" and "walk around" are often not very helpful at all because they mean very different things to different people. So detailed explanations help us to better understand what you mean when you make a general statement.

You could also explain what it is, specifically, that keeps Canon from being the best casual system. And you could tell us what system you think is the best casual system, and what makes it so. A post with these detailed explanations would help us to better understand what you meant when you made the statement that I quoted above. It might also give us greater insight into what other systems offer that Canon doesn't.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

14,130 views & 99 likes for this thread
Is it my imagination but is there a lot of Canon bashing?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is HealthNskin
783 guests, 388 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.