Is Canon losing the War ?

sjones wrote in post #16742174
I am curious to what extent it actually has changed. I don't doubt you, but I didn't get into photography until 2005. Wasn't there always at least some underlying concern (perhaps one that would have amplified notably had the Internet been around) about sharpness, less grain, higher ISO, and such? After all, marketing definitely didn't just start in the past decade.

Back in the 1960s and 1970's, if you commited to buying a particular brand of SLR, you only had maybe 6-12 lenses of various focal lengths to choose from. Period. The selection was based on FL need, and perhaps max aperture. Yes, it mattered if a lens were sharp or not, but today is a virtual preoccupation with IQ, and it seems that FL is so often the LAST thing on the amateur photographer's mind! Overly concerned about quality, too little concern about getting a fantastic shot using the lens to is maximum potential to capture the photo the photographer is making! The emphasis of the average person is too little about making 'the shot'...only what matters is a noiseless and sharp photo (with crappy composition and exposure...the grey snow that we see on POTN proves that second point).

sjones wrote in post #16742174
I am curious to what extent it actually has changed. I don't doubt you, but I didn't get into photography until 2005. Wasn't there always at least some underlying concern (perhaps one that would have amplified notably had the Internet been around) about sharpness, less grain, higher ISO, and such? After all, marketing definitely didn't just start in the past decade.

But again, I generally agree with your point, and of course, the increasing pace of technology and the phenomenon of pixel peeping would be factors fueling the GAS syndrome, so to speak. After all, I believe the Nikon FM2 was, for example, in production with few modifications for almost two decades; it would be unfathomable to think of a 5D Mark Whatever spitting out of the production line with just a few firmware updates for more than a decade.

This also brings up the seemingly overexcited demand for the new...innovation has become such a whorish concept in many ways, and one has to wonder if just the 'pace of life' in all elements has sped up, pushing this collective command for rushed updates, which in turn shifts greater focus on the product itself.

Note: written before your expanded edit.

I agree with this. Everything nowadays is a commodity. Throw away after a few years.. tops.

We used to watch B/W tv, and topped at 26" color through the 70's and early 80's. Tube TVs. Then transistors changes things, now we have to have the biggest set we can get, fastest refresh rate, highest res. media (DVD.. and looking for better), surround sound etc. etc. Cars.. the same.

Don't even think about computers.

Even houses.. back in the 50's/60's/70's, people bought a (affordable) home, and lived in it for 30+ years.

How many have bought houses since the mid-80's, and gone through 4,5,10?

And 4 bedrooms, (with 1 or 2 kids, and ready to leave the nest) w/5-piece ensuite bath, family room, l/r, dining room, den, finished basement, 2 car garage, pool, hot tub, top landscaping..is any of it "necessary"?

It's part of the human condition, for most, i presume.

Life is getting faster and faster, and spinning mindlessly out of control. /rant of sorts.

David Arbogast wrote in post #16741012
It is irrelevant what an audience thinks about an artist's tools. You're quite right that audiences don't look at Rembrandt and ask what tools he used. Of course they don't. But do you really think Rembrandt himself didn't care? Do you really think he didn't give a rip about what kind of brushes, pigments, and substrates he used? Artists and craftsmen care about their tools.

Regarding the OP: Canon is doing just fine. Battles will be lost and battles will be won.

I'm sure he used decent equipment for his work, but my point is he probably didn't obsess about it like some people do on this forum about sensors, advertised specifications, latest technology and the like. The analogy being taking a photo with a Canon versus a Nikon then displaying the output the viewer probably wouldn't say "It would have looked nicer if he used a Nikon/Canon/Sony, etc.". Use the proper tools and techniques and make something nice.

Wilt wrote in post #16742191
Back in the 1960s and 1970's, if you commited to buying a particular brand of SLR, you only had maybe 6-12 lenses of various focal lengths to choose from. Period....

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Canon_FD_lens_m​ount

Back in the early seventies we agonized about IQ just as much. I remember, as a University student, I had to juggle a budget to get the FD 50 f1.4 by getting one Vivitar 28 f2.8 and one Accura 135 f2.8 rather than an FD 50 1.8 and a Vivitar 135 f2.8.

We just tend to remember only the good... good old days...

I also remember the air of superiority the Nikon users used to carry 'because all the reporters in Nam were shooting Nikon-Fs...'

The more things change, the more they remain the same...

MakisM1 wrote in post #16742360
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Canon_FD_lens_m​ount

Back in the early seventies we agonized about IQ just as much. I remember, as a University student, I had to juggle a budget to get the FD 50 f1.4 by getting one Vivitar 28 f2.8 and one Accura 135 f2.8 rather than an FD 50 1.8 and a Vivitar 135 f2.8.

In retrospect, I was thinking about the 60's. Even Canon back then had only had about 20 lenses for the FX when the FL mount was launched, 4 of them were 'normal'. Nikon had 17 lenses for the Nikon F. And at the time of the Pentax Spotmatic launch, there were 22 Pentax lenses. Topcon, the world's first TTL metering camera on the commercial market had 14 lenses to choose from (two of them bellows lenses for macro).

The brands you mention, Vivitar and Accura, were decidedly the 'affordable aftermarket', but even with those added suppliers (don't forget the interchangeable mount lenses, too), two or three dozen lenses is dramatically less than the 11 dozen Canon supplied FD mount lenses during the 70's at the heyday of the SLR.

My point was less obsession with IQ...one purchased f/1.2 normal lens to simply get the shot, even though it was acknowledged to be less on contrast and sharpness throughout its range. People did not obsess about relative IQ compared to the f/1.8 like they seem to today. Today, we commonly see "which has better IQ, the 85mm or the 135mm?" rather than "which FL better will meet my needs?"

Wilt wrote in post #16743044
In retrospect, I was thinking about the 60's. Even Canon back then had only had about 20 lenses for the FX when the FL mount was launched, 4 of them were 'normal'. Nikon had 17 lenses for the Nikon F. And at the time of the Pentax Spotmatic launch, there were 22 Pentax lenses. Topcon, the world's first TTL metering camera on the commercial market had 14 lenses to choose from (two of them bellows lenses for macro).

The brands you mention, Vivitar and Accura, were decidedly the 'affordable aftermarket', but even with those added suppliers (don't forget the interchangeable mount lenses, too), two or three dozen lenses is dramatically less than the 11 dozen Canon supplied FD mount lenses during the 70's at the heyday of the SLR.

My point was less obsession with IQ...one purchased f/1.2 normal lens to simply get the shot, even though it was acknowledged to be less on contrast and sharpness throughout its range. People did not obsess about relative IQ compared to the f/1.8 like they seem to today. Today, we commonly see "which has better IQ, the 85mm or the 135mm?" rather than "which FL better will meet my needs?"

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph Wilt, which I think is the main point you are driving at...

It may be more money than... (take your pick... brains, maturity, education, knowhow, experience, talent...).

It seems like we can satisfy the instant gratification need easier than putting in the time and effort to learn the things that matter... maybe our life puts more constraints on our time, so for most of us, our efforts are shallow...

Are we off-topic yet?...

Anyway, I know I have enough gear that, to learn it properly, will take the rest of my years...

...and I am happy with this!

neacail wrote in post #16740958
Over the course of the nearly three decades that I've been using SLRs, a lot has changed. Sometimes the change has been slow, and sometimes it has been very, very quick. The most amazing thing I think that was ever developed was eye control focus. That was mindblowing!

Time marches on. Things change and evolve. The positions of the players change, but over the long term it doesn't mean squat.

Agreed. And hoping Canon brings it back soon. Should be even more amazing and more reliable with processors being improved by several orders of magnitude.

Of course FOrtune Magazine recently rated Canon as their 6th most admired company in the world. Not bad for a company that so many have claimed has lost their way. I really don't get how so many people think that a couple stops of DR in shadow recovery makes Canon "way behind" when there is so much more to photography.

1Tanker wrote in post #16742236
I agree with this. Everything nowadays is a commodity. Throw away after a few years.. tops.

We used to watch B/W tv, and topped at 26" color through the 70's and early 80's. Tube TVs. Then transistors changes things, now we have to have the biggest set we can get, fastest refresh rate, highest res. media (DVD.. and looking for better), surround sound etc. etc. Cars.. the same.

Don't even think about computers.

Even houses.. back in the 50's/60's/70's, people bought a (affordable) home, and lived in it for 30+ years.

How many have bought houses since the mid-80's, and gone through 4,5,10?

And 4 bedrooms, (with 1 or 2 kids, and ready to leave the nest) w/5-piece ensuite bath, family room, l/r, dining room, den, finished basement, 2 car garage, pool, hot tub, top landscaping..is any of it "necessary"?

It's part of the human condition, for most, i presume.

Life is getting faster and faster, and spinning mindlessly out of control. /rant of sorts.

I agree with some, but other points are just not that black and white.

Computers are a lot like cameras now. The CPUs are very powerful, to the point that there is no need to upgrade. RAM is not limited, so a 16GB or more system is simple. SSD hard drives push 500 MB/s read write speeds (hard drives use to be the biggest bottleneck). For those reason, no one needs to really upgrade like they did just a few years ago.

Cameras are fast, powerful and have everything people want. I would say as far a FF goes, the 5D MKII was a break though and no one that has one really needs to upgrade like in the past. The camera industry is becoming saturated with cameras that just do everything and there is no real need to upgrade like before (same as the PC market).

TVs are a mature market somewhat as well. Everything is 1080p, so unless you really need 4k or a bigger size, upgrading is not a need.

4 or 5 houses? Where do you live where people change houses that often?

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #16743396
I agree with some, but other points are just not that black and white.

Computers are a lot like cameras now. The CPUs are very powerful, to the point that there is no need to upgrade. RAM is not limited, so a 16GB or more system is simple. SSD hard drives push 500 MB/s read write speeds (hard drives use to be the biggest bottleneck). For those reason, no one needs to really upgrade like they did just a few years ago.

Cameras are fast, powerful and have everything people want. I would say as far a FF goes, the 5D MKII was a break though and no one that has one really needs to upgrade like in the past. The camera industry is becoming saturated with cameras that just do everything and there is no real need to upgrade like before (same as the PC market).

TVs are a mature market somewhat as well. Everything is 1080p, so unless you really need 4k or a bigger size, upgrading is not a need.

4 or 5 houses? Where do you live where people change houses that often?

All good points here. Computers are a great example. For a while, the software capabilities and code complexity were growing as fast as computer speeds. Every two years you needed to buy a new one just to be able to run the latest programs without bogging down. But now the software does just about everything you need it to do and software makers are resorting to stupid UI tweaks and breaking backwards compatibility with new versions with fewer features just to keep the money train going. I've had the same desktop machine now for 6 years and am still quite pleased with it. I'll only replace what breaks now.

Cameras are in the same situation. They are reaching the same point where the cost of improvements is enormous but those improvements are marginal. There of course will always be space for improvement for specialized applications just like better and faster data servers are still needed. But the demands and expectations of the mass market are much lower. Many have already reached the point of "my camera is good enough for what I do".

And yeah. Who wants to move their stuff that often? I moved 10 years ago and swore that would be the last time. I HATE moving!

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #16743396
I agree with some, but other points are just not that black and white.

Computers are a lot like cameras now. The CPUs are very powerful, to the point that there is no need to upgrade. RAM is not limited, so a 16GB or more system is simple. SSD hard drives push 500 MB/s read write speeds (hard drives use to be the biggest bottleneck). For those reason, no one needs to really upgrade like they did just a few years ago.

Cameras are fast, powerful and have everything people want. I would say as far a FF goes, the 5D MKII was a break though and no one that has one really needs to upgrade like in the past. The camera industry is becoming saturated with cameras that just do everything and there is no real need to upgrade like before (same as the PC market).

TVs are a mature market somewhat as well. Everything is 1080p, so unless you really need 4k or a bigger size, upgrading is not a need.

4 or 5 houses? Where do you live where people change houses that often?

Really? Am I wrong or did Bill Gates once say that "Why would anyone EVER need more that 640K memory"! We're just getting started folks!

Bakewell wrote in post #16743577
Really? Am I wrong or did Bill Gates once say that "Why would anyone EVER need more that 640K memory"! We're just getting started folks!

I think that's a myth. The 640k limit was a hardware limit imposed by IBM architecture, not a software limit.

gjl711 wrote in post #16743655
I think that's a myth. The 640k limit was a hardware limit imposed by IBM architecture, not a software limit.

Bill Gates claims he never made such a statement.

IBM did design the PC with a processor that could address a maximum of 1MB. The first PC had 16 kB memory upgradeable to 64 kB. To then dedicate 640 kB of the address range for RAM and the rest for I/O (graphics cards, hard disk controllers etc) and BIOS isn't really strange.

pwm2 wrote in post #16743674
Bill Gates claims he never made such a statement.

IBM did design the PC with a processor that could address a maximum of 1MB. The first PC had 16 kB memory upgradeable to 64 kB. To then dedicate 640 kB of the address range for RAM and the rest for I/O (graphics cards, hard disk controllers etc) and BIOS isn't really strange.

Exactly. In the context of DOS on a 1MB address space Gate's comment makes sense, if he made it.

I think he'd have learned from history, however:

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Tom Watson, CEO, IBM 1943

Consider the fact that the Apollo flight computers on board had 2048 16-bit words of RAM (erasable magnetic core memory), that is only 4096 Bytes (4kB) of memory (the programs were stored in 36.8k words of non-erasable memory). So 640k Bytes was a massive amount for the home! We were trusting human lives and millions of dollars of hardware to less than an IBM PC.

Modern programming languages are horrendously wasteful of RAM...machine code is so much more compact when using assembler for programming.

gjl711 wrote in post #16743655
I think that's a myth. The 640k limit was a hardware limit imposed by IBM architecture, not a software limit.

Ok. So everyone's point is? Technology is dead? Nothing left to be accomplished? Hope not!