Canon?

phantelope wrote in post #16823683
last time I checked, Canon makes fantastic cameras, has that changed? Mine work great, maybe I was just lucky.

I never understand posts like this. Its like lets just jump into a ditch by making an absurd comment even though we know this isnt what the OP is saying.

Fortunately I have other things that I need to spend my money on so Im forced to wait. Maybe by that time Canon will have something. If not then I agree with many others that Canon seems to have hit a wall. So my thinking is this, if Canon has something when im ready to upgrade then I will stay with canon but if not then its sony or nikon. I mean if im going to upgrade I want to upgrade not sidegrade.

I guess what it comes down to is..
Would you rather Canon release something more often even if it's not really updating something or have them wait until they have something really good to offer and then release.
It sucks being patient since I really want to see what they offer so make up my mind on if I"m going to get a used 1d or 5d3 or splurge on the new

You guys are so funny. Canon has always been about superior optical engineering. And their optics are honestly the best. Even so, they are developing lenses in the STM market, but more importantly an update to the 35 f/1.4 so it's better and has weather sealing like everything else in their L line does now.

And all of you should know that the camera body is the lesser important component in a camera system. It's the lenses that matter the most. Then the lighting. Then the camera body. Some people may debate whether the lighting comes first, but nobody debates that the camera body should come first.

I'm glad I'm not the only one disappointed in Canon's lack of any real strides in the last couple of years. Nothing but fixing the things they rushed out the door on the 5D3/1Dx and pissing out new Rebels with minuscule changes and silence elsewhere. I'd love to see them do something more with the pixel tech they threw in the 70D, but even that seems to have stalled out <shrug>

Snydremark wrote in post #16825153
I'm glad I'm not the only one disappointed in Canon's lack of any real strides in the last couple of years. Nothing but fixing the things they rushed out the door on the 5D3/1Dx and pissing out new Rebels with minuscule changes and silence elsewhere. I'd love to see them do something more with the pixel tech they threw in the 70D, but even that seems to have stalled out <shrug>

Not so much stalled out in the DSLR lineup as trying to get as much out of it in the 70d as possible. When they put the 70d sensor in the T6i, 70d sales will drop because the LVAF is what is the real seller there, so Canon wants to milk the 70d for as long as possible.

The T3 and T5 are facepalms IMHO. DIGIC 4?? No auto-sensor cleaning? The same 18mp sensor used since the 7d?? The T3 and T5 are the dumping ground of the lineup: all of the spare processors and sensors you have laying around.... LOL!!

I want to thank all of you for your input on this issue. I have owned a Canon 7D for almost 5 years. All I hear and read is rumors of a Mark II coming about and dead silence from Canon. Maybe they do not want to show their hand but 5 years is a long time for electronics and they should have been improving their sensor technology instead of building marginal Rebels. Yes the 70D has great AF but what else?

Why I'm asking this is my 7D is acting up with the err 30 message and wondering of repairing or what else. The 6D is good but their are things I do not like that the 7D has it doesn't, like the joystick. So, maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.

catclaw wrote in post #16825140
You guys are so funny. Canon has always been about superior optical engineering. And their optics are honestly the best. Even so, they are developing lenses in the STM market, but more importantly an update to the 35 f/1.4 so it's better and has weather sealing like everything else in their L line does now.

And all of you should know that the camera body is the lesser important component in a camera system. It's the lenses that matter the most. Then the lighting. Then the camera body. Some people may debate whether the lighting comes first, but nobody debates that the camera body should come first.

Camera bodies are not less important than lenses.

If you have a great lens but a mediocre sensor, you won't get a great image you can print at a large size. Same thing if you have a great sensor but a mediocre lens. And, if you have a great sensor and a great lens, but a mediocre AF system and a moving subject, you won't get a sharp image either. It only takes one weak link to weaken the entire chain.

I wouldn't say Canon's optics are the best. In supertelephotos, certainly. But they're on par with Nikon at medium focal lengths, and decidedly sub-par at wide angles (tilt-shift lenses notwithstanding). And Sigma has them both beaten with the 35/1.4 and the upcoming 50/1.4, and the 85/1.4 (not updated to Art yet) is at least on par with Canon's 1.2 (no clipped edges on out-of-focus highlights at wide aperture is a big thing). And, if manual focus is acceptable, Zeiss also has Canon beaten.

catclaw wrote in post #16825140
You guys are so funny. Canon has always been about superior optical engineering. And their optics are honestly the best. Even so, they are developing lenses in the STM market, but more importantly an update to the 35 f/1.4 so it's better and has weather sealing like everything else in their L line does now.

And all of you should know that the camera body is the lesser important component in a camera system. It's the lenses that matter the most. Then the lighting. Then the camera body. Some people may debate whether the lighting comes first, but nobody debates that the camera body should come first.

Well, it's irrelevant if Canon has magical lenses if the lenses can't be fully utilized compared to what you can do with less great lenses together with a competitors camera body.

There just exists a number of situations where the extra stops of DR isn't just nice, but makes a huge difference. A bigger difference than an update of any lens would give.

It's a question of "critical path". In some situations, the body - or more specifically the sensor - is the weak link in the chain. Then it isn't relevant to talk about glass before body. That weak link will make all other parts of the gear under-perform. And you often can't get your light to remove the required stops of contrast to get the scene within the capability. Not something to argue about when there are no options - but definitely something to argue about when competing gear do have extra DR and have had for quite some time now.

The problem isn't magically going away by ignoring it.

pwm2 wrote in post #16825502
Well, it's irrelevant if Canon has magical lenses if the lenses can't be fully utilized compared to what you can do with less great lenses together with a competitors camera body.

There just exists a number of situations where the extra stops of DR isn't just nice, but makes a huge difference. A bigger difference than an update of any lens would give.

It's a question of "critical path". In some situations, the body - or more specifically the sensor - is the weak link in the chain. Then it isn't relevant to talk about glass before body. That weak link will make all other parts of the gear under-perform. And you often can't get your light to remove the required stops of contrast to get the scene within the capability. Not something to argue about when there are no options - but definitely something to argue about when competing gear do have extra DR and have had for quite some time now.

The problem isn't magically going away by ignoring it.

This is why the A7r is the best thing for Canon-using landscape/studio/archi​tectural/anything that doesn't move photographers since the 5D2.

You get to use Canon glass, but have a sensor with image quality that's current for 2014, not stuck back in 2008.

I'm probably in the minority in this thread. I just purchased a 70D. It isn't full frame, as you know but it will take me quite a while to grow to such an extent that the camera is the limiting factor in my photography.

I do realize for you most of you posting here that isn't the case. Nikon/Sony sensors are better than what Canon has at the moment. I hope Canon will be able to reverse this trend and maybe by then, my abilities will require these improvements. For now, I'm content adding lenses to what I have to continue my pursuit of wildlife photography.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #16825848
I'm probably in the minority in this thread. I just purchased a 70D. It isn't full frame, as you know but it will take me quite a while to grow to such an extent that the camera is the limiting factor in my photography.

I do realize for you most of you posting here that isn't the case. Nikon/Sony sensors are better than what Canon has at the moment. I hope Canon will be able to reverse this trend and maybe by then, my abilities will require these improvements. For now, I'm content adding lenses to what I have to continue my pursuit of wildlife photography.

Actually - for most people, the Canon sensor works great. It worked great 5 years ago and the current sensors are better. And other parts of the cameras has improved too.

In reality, more people complain than is really applicable based on actual needs. But that doesn't make it less relevant that Canon needs to bring in a competing sensor.
1) The 80% that are perfectly fine with what they have would get a few extra keepers with a newer sensor.

2) The 20% who can either make good use of more DR, or who just arbitrarily believes that they need more DR would be happier and would stop creating constant threads about jumping ship.

*) The percent values obviously typical Internet statistics, i.e. arbitrarily invented after some guestimation.

pwm2 wrote in post #16825937
Actually - for most people, the Canon sensor works great. It worked great 5 years ago and the current sensors are better. And other parts of the cameras has improved too.

In reality, more people complain than is really applicable based on actual needs. But that doesn't make it less relevant that Canon needs to bring in a competing sensor.
1) The 80% that are perfectly fine with what they have would get a few extra keepers with a newer sensor.

2) The 20% who can either make good use of more DR, or who just arbitrarily believes that they need more DR would be happier and would stop creating constant threads about jumping ship.

*) The percent values obviously typical Internet statistics, i.e. arbitrarily invented after some guestimation.

Ha! I was wondering where you got that guestimation.

pwm2 wrote in post #16825937
In reality, more people complain than is really applicable based on actual needs. But that doesn't make it less relevant that Canon needs to bring in a competing sensor.
1) The 80% that are perfectly fine with what they have would get a few extra keepers with a newer sensor.

2) The 20% who can either make good use of more DR, or who just arbitrarily believes that they need more DR would be happier and would stop creating constant threads about jumping ship.

*) The percent values obviously typical Internet statistics, i.e. arbitrarily invented after some guestimation.

I agree, join a local photography club and go on a photoshoot where everyone is photographing the same subject and the Canon pics look better. Of course for sports and wildlife the lens makes a big difference

watt100 wrote in post #16826492
I agree, join a local photography club and go on a photoshoot where everyone is photographing the same subject and the Canon pics look better. Of course for sports and wildlife the lens makes a big difference

Uh, no.

Next to a D7200 (or D7100 or D7000) image - or a NEX-7 image, for that matter - a 7D image looks smeary and lacking in detail.

Same thing if you put a D800e image next to a 5D3 image.

I'm talking RAW output, not jpegs. Colour and tone are a matter of taste, and easily adjusted in postprocessing (Canon tends to be too warm, Nikon too cool, and Canon's AWB sucks anyway). But you can't do anything to get back the loss of detail in the Canon files compared to Nikon/Sony ones.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16826514
Uh, no.


I'm talking RAW output, not jpegs. Colour and tone are a matter of taste, and easily adjusted in postprocessing (Canon tends to be too warm, Nikon too cool, and Canon's AWB sucks anyway). .

uh yes ... fairly obvious

and I'm talking the raw