John Power wrote:
There is a lot to be said for "convenience". I think it sometimes enables us to get shots we would otherwise miss without it...
Agreed.
Photography already moved down to 35mm for "convenience" long time ago.
Here we geeks enjoy talking about merits of fast bright lenses, large formats, etc. But the convenience will eventually win. I have rarely seen convenience losing against any factor If they can take good enough photos for Newpapers or *most* magazines with smaller and lighter equipments, why would they carry the heavy equipments, say, to Iraq ?
Don't get me wrong. There will be applications that absolutely requires fast bright lenses. And those lenses will be used just for that.
I think all of us admit that there is really no substitute for fast lens. There is no question.
However, the future of camera lens points to slow lens with IS with a camera with good high ISO performance. As mentioned before, canon makes camera and lens to make money. And the money is in the mass consumer market who cannot appreciate fast lens and DOF. I mentioned before that making a high ISO camera is much cheaper than making faster lenses and it is not as though canon does not have any fast zoom lens (16-35, 24-70, 70-200). However, i doubt canon is going to release any new fast zoom lens anymore and would release slower lens with IS because it is cheaper and more appealing to the mass market. To the common consumer, an IS lens lets them be sloppy with their photo taking technique and the smaller aperature means less chance of mis focusing. Further, the price is cheaper and the lens lighter. Why would the common customer pay more for an "old" lens without IS and is more difficult to use? And Canon knows that and will continue to brainwash customer with their slow lens with IS.
So to canon, they have the fast zooms, so the next step is create cheaper, lighter and less better QC lens with IS.
Dont think about what you want from Canon, but what will canon make to satisfy its huge consumer base and make money. I personally think this is what this thread about. Whether ISO will gain more importance than Aperature and companies like Canon and Nikon will focus their resource on the former or the later.
This calculator doesn't have f/1.2. Does anyone know of a calculator with f/1.2? I beleive I used to have one bookmarked in my MSN Favorites which MSN lost.
If the logic that the general consumer market dictates all, then why do we even need DSLR's much less fast glass?
There are some very capable higher end non-DSLR consumer cameras entering the market these days. Some with Leica and Zeiss designed lenses. The old problems of shutter and turn-on delay are largely solved with higher processor performance, and some even include buffers for short bursts of images.
These cameras can produce excellent images, especially when used by a competent photographer.
So if some believe the manufacturers will gradually eliminate fast glass because the market dries up, they might also decide to stop building complicated DSLR's as well.
I just helped a couple of people buy digital P&S cameras. DOF is an entirely alien concept. They want bigger LCD displays, longer zooms, higher fps and the more advnvaced want more available light capability in the form of auto ISO.
BTW the Fujifilm FinePix F10, has a beautiful 2.5" lcd and very low noise good 800 that goes to 1600. Trouble is, no viewfinder!
At a recent press conference I saw only one canon 70-200 2.8 with the majority being Panasonic Lumix Z5's (I believe).
"DOF" is way behind the other modes like "sports" portrait" "landscape" etc in the instruction manuals and on the auto dials/menus of modern consumer cameras.
Agreed. If i did not shoot DSLR, that is exactly what i want in my P&S. High FPS, better ISO, IS, more Zoom, larger LCD...etc
I mean all we 35mm shooters do not really complain that we dont have cheap camera movements like the LF cameras (the Lensbaby does not really count :-D ). If we can live without camera movements, interchangeable backs, f64 and all the other stuff only medium and large format camera have that we do not have access too, i sincerely believe that the casual consumer will have an even lower treshold for these advance features like *GASP aperature.
In the same way, look at transmission of cars. Auto transmission are inferior to Manual. They change gear slowly (except the F1 cars.. but) and there is an inherent power loss. Furthermore, they have worse fuel economy because the gear change is not that efficient.
So why is every manufacter not ditching auto transmission. Simple, that is what consumer wants.
And the point is that consumers do not want or even know what aperature is.
If they can take good enough photos for Newpapers or *most* magazines with smaller and lighter equipments, why would they carry the heavy equipments, say, to Iraq ?