p.1 #1 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
I am not looking for any excuse for Canon and nothing against folks that try to get to the bottom of some banding issues, some ghost images on their (underexposed) images, etc. Frankly, I have not seen any issues on images taken with my Canon gear under normal shooting and processing conditions. My question is, is this behavior typical with Canon users only or users of other brands, especially Nikon users, scrutinize their gear to approximately the same level as Canon users do also? I have spent a fair amount of time there in the last 2 years but I have not seen anything like it before there, although it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.
This is an honest question and I am not talking folks down that try to do this excersize as almost like a, for lack of a better word, "sport"? I am just curious... To each his/her own, I guess.
p.1 #2 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
I am a Canon user and a Pentax user. The guys over at pentaxforums.com are a lot more artistic and a lot less technical, in general, than the Canon users. They basically view all of their Pentax gear through rose colored glasses while many here unnecsarily pixel peep under 100% magnification. Don't get me wrong, pixel peeping has its place, namely when making very large prints of very wonderful photographs. But most I've seen around here just see pixel peeping as a hobby in and of itself, not with the end of making very large prints. Who wants a 36" print of a common housecat, shot in bad light under the wrong color balance? Apparently more than I would have imagined
p.1 #3 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
The Nikon Forum too has it's fair share of under the microscope junkies, Joshua.
Most of us shoot, post, and print with nary an issue but it seems the most vocal
gear critics don't post many pictures OR have a website/galleries. Imagine that!
p.1 #4 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
I think any user who has too much time on there hands is prone to over examination of their gear. As mentioned by trenchmonkey, the critical people seem to be the ones who aren't shooting (or shooting anything good). Its far easier to point the finger at the gear rather than look at the user and try and learn how to be better. I guess that only goes so far, since you can't really learn artistic talent -- believe me, I've tried!
Paul
p.1 #5 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
I gotta say after hanging out in the Nikon and Canon forums here on FM, the Nikon forum seems a lot more chilled with a generally more positive vibe. What ChrisDM says of Pentax world is true over there as well, there's more of a rose colored glasses view of Nikon gear.
p.1 #6 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
I think ChrisDM makes an interesting and probably valid point. The different camera companies attract different types of users, to some extent. I think Canon naturally attracts gear heads and pixel peepers (nothing wrong with that if that's what you enjoy) being that for much of the digital era it has had the highest resolution sensors (at attainable prices) with the lowest noise. Obviously, Canon also attracts a lot of working pros and artists. I'm just saying that the people who really care about the pixels (at least until recently) probably found that Canon offered the best performance.
The strongest argument in favor of Nikon has long been shooting performance (AF, auto exposure, ergonomics, flash system, etc.). Canon has relied more on IQ, both in terms of sensors and lenses.
So it seems natural that Canon would attract more gear heads.
Also, there are far more Canon users in general, meaning far more folks to make critical comments.
p.1 #7 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
I don't think you can generalize based on the brand of equipment people use, though it is a fair observation that there are those who seem to focus more on the perceived shortcomings of their equipment than on using it to make photographs.
Basically any of these brands (and others) can be used to make really, really fine photographs.
Dan
AGeoJO wrote:
I am not looking for any excuse for Canon and nothing against folks that try to get to the bottom of some banding issues, some ghost images on their (underexposed) images, etc. Frankly, I have not seen any issues on images taken with my Canon gear under normal shooting and processing conditions. My question is, is this behavior typical with Canon users only or users of other brands, especially Nikon users, scrutinize their gear to approximately the same level as Canon users do also? I have spent a fair amount of time there in the last 2 years but I have not seen anything like it before there, although it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.
This is an honest question and I am not talking folks down that try to do this excersize as almost like a, for lack of a better word, "sport"? I am just curious... To each his/her own, I guess....Show more →
p.1 #8 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
One more factor: Canon has probably attracted a higher percentage of novice photographers who grew up in the digital era. Lets face it, how many folks buy a Pentax these days? Their user base is probably dominated by those who grew up with Pentax cameras. And many Nikon users seem to argue that they prefer Nikon because they grew fond of it in the film days. You don't hear that about Canon as much. But if you go into a Best Buy or the like, the DSLR section will be dominated by Canons, especially until recently.
I think novice photographers, especially those grew up in the digital world, are more prone to pixel peep and stress over the raw IQ of a camera instead of the artistic merit of the images they can capture with it.
p.1 #9 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
It may also be relevant to the fact that Canon has typically been at the lead of the megapixel race. As sensor resolution increases, deficiencies in shooting technique as well as equipment compatibility issues become more apparent.
If AF is somewhat off with a 4MP camera, it probably won't show in a significant percentage of images. The same can't be said if the sensor resolution is 21MP, 27MP FF equivalent, or 40+MP FF equivalent for a camera like the 7D.
There is some irony that the highest pixel density and therefore potentially highest resolution that will accentuate problems is found in the consumer and prosumer line where user experience is typically lower.
p.1 #10 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
A very therapeutic exercise (to get over the piles of BS on the forums) is to go examine a bunch of Art Wolfe's work over the last several years. A good chunk of his nature and wildlife work was done with crappy Canon cameras like the 1Ds3 and the 5D2 (or the 1Ds2 and 5D before that) and such unusable lenses like the 16-35, 24-70 or the 400 DO.
If he can not only make those images with that gear but also then sell those images to not only magazines and books but also to art collectors, I think its safe to say that there aren't a lot of us being held back by our gear.
As an aside, his latest project on male nudes was done with medium format digital, though a lot of that work is being targeted specially towards collectors.
p.1 #11 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
thedigitalbean wrote:
A very therapeutic exercise (to get over the piles of BS on the forums) is to go examine a bunch of Art Wolfe's work over the last several years. A good chunk of his nature and wildlife work was done with crappy Canon cameras like the 1Ds3 and the 5D2 (or the 1Ds2 and 5D before that) and such unusable lenses like the 16-35, 24-70 or the 400 DO.
A 1ds marklll is a piece of crap? Great. Now I can't even afford crap! Maybe I should just sell off all my gear and get a Holga.
p.1 #13 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
AGeoJO wrote:
I am not looking for any excuse for Canon and nothing against folks that try to get to the bottom of some banding issues, some ghost images on their (underexposed) images, etc. Frankly, I have not seen any issues on images taken with my Canon gear under normal shooting and processing conditions. My question is, is this behavior typical with Canon
I haven't found this attitude to be prevalent anywhere irl, it seems purely an artifact of the online forums. Irl none of the photographers I talk with or overhear ever talk about banding, 'my copy' stuff, ghost images, or focus problems. We're mostly just talking about photographic subjects (people), occasionally a new technology / gear comes up like the sony penticle camera or the latest new whatever. And I shoot with people who are often much more hardcore (into photography) than I am.
Canon does have a whole lot more photographers than any other brand, it's something like 55% canon, 35% nikon, and 10% other for DSLR or 'beyond point-and-shoot' users so naturally you'll probably get more technophiles in the canon camp than any other.
p.1 #15 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
AGeoJO wrote:
I am not looking for any excuse for Canon and nothing against folks that try to get to the bottom of some banding issues, some ghost images on their (underexposed) images, etc. Frankly, I have not seen any issues on images taken with my Canon gear under normal shooting and processing conditions. My question is, is this behavior typical with Canon users only or users of other brands, especially Nikon users, scrutinize their gear to approximately the same level as Canon users do also?
Over on the Nikon forum, the never-ending hand-wringing is all about trying to convince each other there is no reason on earth, and never will be, that anyone could possibly need a camera with more than 12 megapixels... (unless the D700 replacement has more...)
p.1 #16 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
molson wrote:
Over on the Nikon forum, the never-ending hand-wringing is all about trying to convince each other there is no reason on earth, and never will be, that anyone could possibly need a camera with more than 12 megapixels... (unless the D700 replacement has more...)
This is a good point. It's interesting to go read what's said about their ultra-wides, which are supposedly vastly superior to the 16-35L II. In short, the 14-24 2.8, while optically superb, is viewed by many as a pain to use; the 16-35 VR 4 is dogged for not being up to the high standards of the of the 14-24 (not as wide, not as fast, not as sharp, more distortion), and the 17-35 2.8 is ripped for being old and less sharp than either of the others. They have THREE great options, and many aren't happy with any of them. In fact, I've noticed many a former Canon user pining for their old 17-40L! Incidentally, the 14-24 seems to be an amazing, although special purpose, optic. And the 16-35 VR and 17-35 look like nice lenses, but no better than the 16-35L II.
Also amusing to hear Nikon users talk about how their new primes dominate the Canon equivalents and simultaneously grip about poor bokeh, soft corners, and the like.
Any modern system can produce fantastic images in the right hands. Some are easier to use in certain settings than others. But, of course, it's still fun to talk about gear (if that's your cup of tea).
Sep 23, 2010 at 03:44 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
trenchmonkey wrote:
The Nikon Forum too has it's fair share of under the microscope junkies, Joshua.
Most of us shoot, post, and print with nary an issue but it seems the most vocal
gear critics don't post many pictures OR have a website/galleries. Imagine that!
p.1 #18 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
ace97302 wrote:
Any modern system can produce fantastic images in the right hands. Some are easier to use in certain settings than others. But, of course, it's still fun to talk about gear (if that's your cup of tea).
Yup, I am not disputing that at all but it seems like Canon users are too obsessed with trying to find faults of their gear at all cost... well, almost. Here is something to illustrate my point:
I vividly remembered the ghosting issue on the 7D that showed up on normally exposed shots, but only if you change the exposure to an extreme level that would turn the images to practically completely dark. Yes, Canon ended up fixing that in a firmware and apparently even Canon wasn't aware of that issue . Don't ge me wrong, I would prefer my images without ghosting, visible or not visible but it did not even cross my mind to go to that extreme to find that out .
p.1 #19 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
AGeoJO wrote:
Yup, I am not disputing that at all but it seems like Canon users are too obsessed with trying to find faults of their gear at all cost... well, almost.
More to the point, there is a small group of individuals who like to repeatedly post about faults they think they see in a few pieces of Canon gear... and a larger group of people who like to poke fun at them. These threads do tend to to get dragged out ad naseum, and I'm sure it gives visitors the mistaken impression that Canon people are always complaining about their gear.
p.1 #20 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
this is unique to canon?
I thought it was unique to forums frankly.
real life discussions about cameras themselves or company A vs company B tend to be more about build quality or button layout, at least in my experience. I think that is a discussion worth having, as well.
it may take the best to be the best but I wouldnt know so I try to leave that alone. that is the realm of things like pixel density, autofocus speed on one pro body vs another, who's got a better flash master/slave system and which company makes the better 300mm f2.8 IMO
Maybe I should just sell off all my gear and get a Holga.