JAR - Just Another Rant!!

So I got my copy of the latest American Photo. I like that magazine; it's different than the others.

There was a Sony insert along with it - chock full of information about the FF Alpha trio. So you know that's a paid insert, and they're gonna sing praises ... which they did.

My beef(?) is with the magazine itself. They had some top ten this, and top fifteen that kind of lists and some other gear articles, and as far as I can remember, the only Canon that got mentioned anywhere was the T5. Now that I think about it, I don't see a whole lotta Canons mentioned in any of the magazines I get; is there a bias towards Canon in the industry as a whole?

Are other products so much better than Canon, that we can't even get a word in sideways? Should my beef be with Canon, and not the magazine(s)?

alphamalex wrote in post #17241981
...

My beef(?) is with the magazine itself. They had some top ten this, and top fifteen that kind of lists and some other gear articles, and as far as I can remember, the only Canon that got mentioned anywhere was the T5. Now that I think about it, I don't see a whole lotta Canons mentioned in any of the magazines I get; is there a bias towards Canon in the industry as a whole?

Are other products so much better than Canon, that we can't even get a word in sideways? Should my beef be with Canon, and not the magazine(s)?

I suspect that it's because depending on the weight of the various categories, Canon as a whole tends to trend low and the one area Canon has consistently been the leader, high ISO noise, the others have caught up. If you look at the Canon lineup, that are all really nice cameras, but not the market leader in any.

Canon has far more market share than any of them and they don't commit the advertising spend like Sony and Nikon do. The magazines are going to praise those that spend the most on ad space.

Depending on what you are shopping for, Canon isn't doing that great right now. The newer entry level crop cameras and high level full frame cameras are being dominated by Nikon and Sony right now.

I just picked up a Nikon D3300 refurbished for $350 about 2 months ago- 24mp, no AA filter, better low ISO and high ISO capabilites, dynamic range, and color depth than any crop sensor from Canon. Has a higher DXOmark score than the 1Dx, if you care about things like that. On the other side of the coin, the D750, D810, and A7r are all very capable cameras, with better sensors, priced lower than the 5d3.

With the 7dII Canon has a chance to get some media attention as the best crop sensor high speed machine, and the 6D is still aggressively priced for a full frame camera with good high ISO capabilites, as well. Doesn't mean Canon products are no good, just means don't expect them to be sitting on anyone's top lists until they upgrade their sensors to compete with the nikon/sony offerings.

bsmotril wrote in post #17242048
Canon has far more market share than any of them and they don't commit the advertising spend like Sony and Nikon do. The magazines are going to praise those that spend the most on ad space.

yep. Canon advertises in national geographic magazines, and that's far more reaching than typical "photography" magazines. NAT GEO is what I consider my primary photography magazine. I do have other subscriptions of photography magazines, but nothing provides the imagery and quality of nat geo.

alphamalex wrote in post #17241981
we can't even get a word in sideways? Should my beef be with Canon, and not the magazine(s)?

Who's we? I couldn't care less which products are rated highly in any magazine.

Why should you have a beef with anyone? Does your camera does what you expect it to? Great! Go out and take some pictures. If not, buy something that addresses a feature(s) that you feel is/are lacking in your current gear.

PLENTY about Canon here. LOTS of news and technical articles.

alphamalex wrote in post #17241981
So I got my copy of the latest American Photo. I like that magazine; it's different than the others.

There was a Sony insert along with it - chock full of information about the FF Alpha trio. So you know that's a paid insert, and they're gonna sing praises ... which they did.

My beef(?) is with the magazine itself. They had some top ten this, and top fifteen that kind of lists and some other gear articles, and as far as I can remember, the only Canon that got mentioned anywhere was the T5. Now that I think about it, I don't see a whole lotta Canons mentioned in any of the magazines I get; is there a bias towards Canon in the industry as a whole?

Are other products so much better than Canon, that we can't even get a word in sideways? Should my beef be with Canon, and not the magazine(s)?

Why do you even care. What beef are you talking about? Will you all of a sudden be able to take better photos if a magazine praises your camera?

Just go out and shoot.

While we're on a rant… I strongly believe that camera technology has reached a point where they out-perform whatever skill the operator may have to contribute.. I get that for the working photogs needing the increasingly high ISO performance (wedding guys come to mind), or great improvements in AF (wildlife/sports) etc, most of the cameras available today are just overkill for most of us on here (myself included). For the gun folks out there, I can better explain it as, just because my rifle built to 0.5MOA at 200yd spec doesn't mean I'd be able to put in a group that tight at that distance.

Need proof? Look at the hundreds of pages of INCREDIBLE images captured with the regular old 5D "classic" and 1D2 picture threads. The images in the 5D3/6D/1Dx/XYZgreatest​newestcamera threads, as amazing as they may be, are for the most part could have just as easily been taken on a 5Dc or 1D2 or 40D for that matter - when PP is applied and viewed online (such as is the case with many folks).

And the last $0.01 out of my 2 cents is that I frankly don't give a **** what a magazine/website says about my gear. If anything, it'll just drive some people to dump canon platform allowing me to acquire used gear at cheaper prices

fiebru1119 wrote in post #17242181
While we're on a rant… I strongly believe that camera technology has reached a point where they out-perform whatever skill the operator may have to contribute.. I get that for the working photogs needing the increasingly high ISO performance (wedding guys come to mind), or great improvements in AF (wildlife/sports) etc, most of the cameras available today are just overkill for most of us on here (myself included).

Sorry, a camera is not like a gun, AF is borderline as good as it gets with the higher end models, but there can certainly be big improvements everywhere else, including high ISO. What's wrong with a clean super 400K iso? If anything, that allows photographers to take better astro photos, better sports photos with higher shutter speeds, sports photos with smaller aperture glass, less blurred images, ect. If it can be improved, why the heck not?

I would love a tool that has no limits. Every tool has limits, my life would be simpler with less limitation. Why cant I have a base iso of 6.25 with a max iso of 400K? Most of photography could have been done with film, but I'm glad there was a movement to digital. Some day iso 25 might be the norm as well as 400K performance.

Keep in mind that in photography magazines there is not a great deal of editorial integrity. Articles and advertising dollars are often intertwined. American Photo seems better than most but likely still aware of where their bread is buttered.

The bottom line for any magazine (or any other commercial venture) is the bottom line. They are in it for absolutely no other reason than to make money. Money drives the advertising, the editorial page and the reviews. What the users on POTN, Photocamel, FM, DPS, PZ and TDP, think means a lot more to me than whatever drivel shows up in a paid advertisement - OOOPS! - I mean magazine.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17242454
The bottom line for any magazine (or any other commercial venture) is the bottom line. They are in it for absolutely no other reason than to make money. Money drives the advertising, the editorial page and the reviews. What the users on POTN, Photocamel, FM, DPS, PZ and TDP, think means a lot more to me than whatever drivel shows up in a paid advertisement - OOOPS! - I mean magazine.

Amen!

I only care about Canon's advertising plans because they (their ad agency) have purchased photographs from me in the past for it. I whole-heartedly support more of this advertising.

Canon ads not featuring my photos? Could not care less.

Overall, I support Canon expanding their advertising budget and then buying more photographs from me.

Hogloff wrote in post #17242175
Why do you even care. What beef are you talking about? Will you all of a sudden be able to take better photos if a magazine praises your camera?

Just go out and shoot.

Yep, don't care bout magazines or reviews for what its worth.
All cameras are good, just get to know your's and be happy.

🐸🐸🐸