LOL Canon 6D is more "retro" than the Nikon Df

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16438588
...The DF is aimed at people who think removing video and adding dials makes a camera somehow more suited for photography, even though in the end it still takes photos, just like every other DSLR (even those that cost less and give you more)...

The day that a still camera is considered "crippled" because it doesn't have video is the day that photography should commit suicide.

Anyway, I prefer aperture rings, shutter speed dials, and manual focusing. Probably why I use a rangefinder. There's no rule that what technology brings is going to please everyone...some people still like to use paintbrushes and pianos; imagine that.

And never underestimate the pleasure that simplicity can bring to some people, even if you can't comprehend why.

As for "retro," the basic form factor of the current DSLR is now more than a quarter century old.

To be sure, the Df is flawed---the lack of a split screen/microprism viewfinder a notable omission---but anything that reduces the use of little buttons and LCD screens is a step in the right direction for some people. Revolutionary, no, but expanding options, yes.

And...

Choice, it's a good thing.

I'm out, but PM's always welcome.

Hogloff wrote in post #16438607
it's not revolutionary...but it is stepping out of the box, which I appreciate a lot from a company. Canon keeps within it's comfort zone way too much. I appreciate companies like Sony that bring on new products, many with great innovations that push the industry overall. Without competition, we would have a stripped down 5d3 with another version of mediocre AF. Nikon pushed Canon to release the 5d3 as we see it today. Now Sony is pushing Canon's buttons and we'll see once again Canon roll over and respond.

Right. You just reminded me, the 5DIII and 1DX are also still pretty much the standard "pro" cameras. Again, sorry you fail to see the significance of Canon's new products, doesn't mean their failing, it means they're not catering to you, get over it. I'm very happy with my 6D, chose it over the 5DII and 5DIII because it did everything that I needed and gave me some bonuses (WiFi, light weight body, silent shutter). I'm also very happy with my M, I think the only thing they did wrong with it was the price and lens support. I bought mine for $400, but was fully ready to pay $500 for it.

I love how you continually go on to bash products that you have no experience with, even though they have an overwhelmingly positive feedback from the majority of users (yes, even the M, even though you're right about the new price being the reason).

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ers/ci/19207/N/​4102783799

http://www.amazon.com …=zg_bs_nav_e_4_​7242008011

sjones wrote in post #16438627
The day that a still camera is considered "crippled" because it doesn't have video is the day that photography should commit suicide.

Well, I pretty much never shoot video and so I don't care if a camera has it or not. But as an engineer who deals with a software side of things I do have a pretty clear view of what Nikon did here.

In short, once a camera company has created video function and built it into their now-standard menu and control structure, removing it is going to actually require more effort in any new body than just leaving it in.

So Nikon probably spent time and effort to get rid of a feature that doesn't affect users that do not want it. And in fact from what I have seen of the earlier reviews of the Df, some people have noted that the menu layout seems to have gone backwards in time to older, less user friendly layouts. This suggests the cost of trying to strip out video.

dSLRs use a 25 year old form factor because the form follows the function. Until a better function comes along, the form will stay the same.

Here is the difference. Cars today all have the same basic layout (4 wheels, engine in the front etc etc). And that is the same form they have had now for about 100 years. But that doesn't make all current cars 'retro'.

Some cars are 'retro' with deliberate copying of the styling cues from older cars. Other modern cars are completely not retro and carry new styling.

LostArk wrote in post #16436647
Canon 6D. Pure photography when you want it. Impure photography when you don't. A lady in the streets but a freak in the bed, if you will.

That is the best (and funniest!) one-line summary of the 6D I have ever read.
But you could have said "A lady in the streets but a freak in the sheets!"

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16438646
Right. You just reminded me, the 5DIII and 1DX are also still pretty much the standard "pro" cameras. Again, sorry you fail to see the significance of Canon's new products, doesn't mean their failing, it means they're not catering to you, get over it. I'm very happy with my 6D, chose it over the 5DII and 5DIII because it did everything that I needed and gave me some bonuses (WiFi, light weight body, silent shutter). I'm also very happy with my M, I think the only thing they did wrong with it was the price and lens support. I bought mine for $400, but was fully ready to pay $500 for it.

I love how you continually go on to bash products that you have no experience with, even though they have an overwhelmingly positive feedback from the majority of users (yes, even the M, even though you're right about the new price being the reason).

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ers/ci/19207/N/​4102783799

http://www.amazon.com …=zg_bs_nav_e_4_​7242008011

I'm not bashing them, I'm just saying they are not revolutionary in any way, just the same old transition with a few bells and whistles. The Sony is revolutionary and it will push other camera manufactures to start expanding their horizons.

You like the M. Do you for one minute think Canon would have ever come out with the M if Fuji, Olympus and Sony were not pushing Canon with their mirrorless offerings.

Canon is the leader in DSLR cameras and it would like nothing but to continue making the same old DSLR's for the next 100 years without much change as long as it kept being the leader. It is these smaller market share companies that will be the innovators, trying to come up with disruptive technologies that will take customers away from Canon.

The mirrorless cameras are only a few years old, yet they already have obtained 20% market share of interchangeable cameras. Thst is why Canon awoke from hibernation and was forced to enter the mirrorless camera game.

Hogloff wrote in post #16439229
I'm not bashing them, I'm just saying they are not revolutionary in any way,

...


The mirrorless cameras are only a few years old, yet they already have obtained 20% market share of interchangeable cameras. Thst is why Canon awoke from hibernation and was forced to enter the mirrorless camera game.

a) you apparently don't understand the dual pixel focusing technology in the 70D.

b) i'd like to see a source where mirrorless interchangeable cameras get anymore than 5 percent market share world wide and are seen as a replacement for DSLRs rather than point and shoots or camera phones.

The mirrorless segment is gaining huge ground in Japan, where it makes up about 10% of the camera market, according to the Camera & Imaging Products Association. Of the 1.8 million cameras shipped in the Americas (not just the USA) in April, a measly 38,843 of them were mirrorless — 2% of the total.

http://www.usatoday.co​m …rrorless-cameras/2431125/

disclaimer: i have no interest in mirrorless and see them strictly as a logical step up from advanced point and shoot cameras for folks that have no business buying a DSLR

JeffreyG wrote in post #16438901
Well, I pretty much never shoot video and so I don't care if a camera has it or not. But as an engineer who deals with a software side of things I do have a pretty clear view of what Nikon did here.

In short, once a camera company has created video function and built it into their now-standard menu and control structure, removing it is going to actually require more effort in any new body than just leaving it in.

OK I admit I am not a software engineer, but I have been around software in integrated hardware-software systems products for about 3 decades now. It does not seem at all very difficult to do the following...

• Put in a mode switch with one fewer electrical contacts (the one to enter Movie mode)
  
• Comment out the line of code which displays Movie parameters in the menu system

Wilt wrote in post #16439592
OK I admit I am not a software engineer, but I have been around software in integrated hardware-software systems products for about 3 decades now. It does not seem at all very difficult to do the following...

• Put in a mode switch with one fewer electrical contacts (the one to enter Movie mode)
  
• Comment out the line of code which displays Movie parameters in the menu system

The actual code for taking movies can still be embedded for movie functionality, but the user can neither get to the menu to set it up for how they want it to work, nor can they electrically trigger the camera to go into the mode to take movies. And if coded well to begin with, the entire Movie capability is one block that could even be commented out entirely during compilation, so that even the possibility of a code hacking by the end user is prevented.

But the video options wind up infiltrating other areas of the menu structure. It seems simple, but then you remember that you reworked the live view menu to allow the user to set things so that live view automatically starts movie mode if they want. etc. etc.

In any case, whether deleting video is a small task or a large task, it is a task nevertheless. Somebody invested time and effort to delete a feature that doesn't affect the camera if left in place.

You might feel that cruise control and bluetooth communications are out of place in your sports car. But you have to see that it would be silly for a car company to start with a model capable of both and then spend some time and effort re-writing the code just to disable both features....considerin​g that a user is free to simply ignore both if they do not want to use them.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16439730
....considering that a user is free to simply ignore both if they do not want to use them.

That's crazy talk!!!

Ignore a feature we don't want to use, who knew!

Still waiting for the true pure DLSR, no live view, no video, no Peripheral Illumination Correction, no high iso noise reduction, no auto lighting optimizer, no highlight tone priority, M-mode-only, no Auto White Balance, no auto ISO, no color filter array, no AA filter, no meter, no menu, no screen (pros know they got the shot, no chimping), no backup battery (pros always have charged batteries), no continuos shutter drive One Shot only, no AF at all, no electronic aperture (so mount EF lens on another body, stop it down, and twist off while holding DOF button), no self-timer ('real' shutter release cable with a blower and hose thing), no tethered shooting, no firmware updates, one card slot (film cameras could't hold and shoot two rolls), has to have film advance lever, chunky square look vs organic and ergonomic, available in silver, no USB port (have to take card to walgreens to process, like ye olde tyme, images wont read from card reader, this is the retro way). Until then all this junk just gets in the way of being a still photographer.

koala yummies wrote in post #16439854
Still waiting for the true pure DLSR, no (list)......Until then all this junk just gets in the way of being a still photographer.

Gee, koala, that is rather extreme.

To me a pure dSLR equivalent to the film SLR of the late 1960's and 1970's does indeed have these items (in your elimination list):

• integrated meter;
  
• Auto mode(s);
  
• self timer;
  
• chunky square look in chrome,
  
• advance lever (to cock the shutter)
  
• lens with automatic diaphragm control
  

koala yummies wrote in post #16439854
That's crazy talk!!!

Ignore a feature we don't want to use, who knew!

Still waiting for the true pure DLSR, no live view, no video, no Peripheral Illumination Correction, no high iso noise reduction, no auto lighting optimizer, no highlight tone priority, M-mode-only, no Auto White Balance, no auto ISO, no color filter array, no AA filter, no meter, no menu, no screen (pros know they got the shot, no chimping), no backup battery (pros always have charged batteries), no continuos shutter drive One Shot only, no AF at all, no electronic aperture (so mount EF lens on another body, stop it down, and twist off while holding DOF button), no self-timer ('real' shutter release cable with a blower and hose thing), no tethered shooting, no firmware updates, one card slot (film cameras could't hold and shoot two rolls), has to have film advance lever, chunky square look vs organic and ergonomic, available in silver, no USB port (have to take card to walgreens to process, like ye olde tyme, images wont read from card reader, this is the retro way). Until then all this junk just gets in the way of being a still photographer.

I see what you did there

hes gone wrote in post #16439294
=he's gone;16439294]a) you apparently don't understand the dual pixel focusing technology in the 70D.

b) i'd like to see a source where mirrorless interchangeable cameras get anymore than 5 percent market share world wide and are seen as a replacement for DSLRs rather than point and shoots or camera phones.

disclaimer: i have no interest in mirrorless and see them strictly as a logical step up from advanced point and shoot cameras for folks that have no business buying a DSLR

I'd dig up the source if I had more time, but you don't sound like someone I really want to spend time discussing mirrorless cameras with since you have your mind made up that they are not real cameras.

But in the last year, worldwide sales of interchangeable lens cameras were mirrorless, a pretty pressure stat given the technology has only been around for a few years.

Google it yourself if you really want to see.

the flying moose wrote in post #16437958
Canon needs to to put digital innards in a AE-1 body. I'd buy that.

Whilst that may look nice, I'd rather Canon spent some time leading from the front in terms of bringing out revolutionary products. The 6d isn't as small as the RX1 so it has no edge there. Now the A7r will make the 6D look positively huge as it beats it out for IQ and DR. Wi-Fi has been in tiny smartphones for years so even though Canon were first to put it in a DSLR the idea was pinched from phone technology.
Most of my favourite photographers on here are using 5D2's, make of that what you will, but I see that Canons sensor tech has hardly moved since the 5D2 was introduced and the smart money has recognised that.

h14nha wrote in post #16440149
Whilst that may look nice, I'd rather Canon spent some time leading from the front in terms of bringing out revolutionary products. The 6d isn't as small as the RX1 so it has no edge there. Now the A7r will make the 6D look positively huge as it beats it out for IQ and DR. Wi-Fi has been in tiny smartphones for years so even though Canon were first to put it in a DSLR the idea was pinched from phone technology.
Most of my favourite photographers on here are using 5D2's, make of that what you will, but I see that Canons sensor tech has hardly moved since the 5D2 was introduced and the smart money has recognised that.

I agree. I didn't mean forget everything else and focus on doing something like an AE-1 digital. I should have been more clear but what I meant is if Canon steps into the "retro" game, I'd like a see an actual retro camera with digital innards, not like the Nikon DF.

Canon need to come out a body like Nikon DF. There are many "photographer" impress people with their camera but not their photography.