Although I don't share with Guy's pessimism, I have to say I believe he was dead on about his predictions as to what Canon would release.

CK - Guy M. cares because he wants all photography to be elevated, and Canon can do that if they try. When Guy talks, it's not just FMers who listen.

python:

I know who Guy is. I stand by my comments.

Guy Mancuso wrote:
You know Canon just screwed the pro’s again , no wide angle , no pro body but another version of a 1.6.

I have the utmost respect for Guy, and his general opinions, and agree mostly with what he says. I think if I were some one who needed wide angle a lot (which I don't), I would perhaps be considering another system, but perhaps as an addition, rather than a replacement.

At least on the wide angle end, Leica / Zeiss provide a solution that will allow Pro's to get what they need, if Canon are not providing the goods. On the long end, neither Leica or Zeiss appear to be in the ball game at all. How many compaines provide superb 400mm - 600mm telephotos of the standard that Canon do? Not many.....

So, it seems to me that for a Pro working in the wide angle areana most of the time, Leica/Zeiss have the lead (using an adapter if required). If you are a Pro working in the mid range most of the time, the 85L and 135L do a superb job for the money, and in the telephoto, be it wildlife or sports, Canon just can't be beat.

So, when Guy says that the Pro's have been screwed again, I am not totally sure I agree.

They have not screwed the mid range people, they have not screwed the telephoto people, and, I am sure did not set out to 'get Mr Mancuso' either. Perhaps their offerings are sub par in the wide angle department, but who else can match their overall breadth of products? While ever people contine to buy Canon wide angle lenses, Canon will not feel the need to upgrade them. If no one bought them, then it would be a different matter altogether.

Again, I say this with the utmost repsect for Guy, his opinions and his awesome work....

Edited by DaveEP on Feb 22, 2006 at 12:44 AM GMT

Guy Mancuso wrote:
Dave go check a leica 400 2.8 better yet better not .


Tell me it's auto focus...... and I may just look. Have you tried constant manually focusing on an F1 car doing almost 200mph?

It's hard enough with AF !!

SeaCay wrote:
python:
I know who Guy is. I stand by my comments.

CK, sorry if I sounded argumentative. I wasn't try to say that you didn't know who Guy was, but that Canon does know who he is, and that his posting on this forum can have an impact. To what degree, i don't know. But if anyone that matters from Canon ever visits FM, I doubt it's just to read the Alternative boards.

Guy wrote:
But yet shareholders come first.

You must know, Guy, that this is a legal requirement. Shareholders must, by law, come first. Canon are not allowed to design an UWA prime that might only sell 300 copies (because most of us can't afford the thing) and be a financial loss. The shareholders - most of whom couldn't give a rat's ass about photography, by the way - would scream.

I don't like it any more than you do, but hey. Welcome to the world.

Guy,

Doesn't it actually make more sense for a PRO to be using medium format digicams for their wide-angle stuff, and using the 35mm for their longer reach stuff?

If (it's a big if, but I think it may well be true) that we've reached a point where going to smaller pixels isn't going to help us much, then surely the best way to get better images that require wide field-of-views is to use medium format, right?

DavidP wrote:
Doesn't it actually make more sense for a PRO to be using medium format digicams for their wide-angle stuff, and using the 35mm for their longer reach stuff?


Oh... my... god...

i just realized that i waste so much of my time here.

somebody, please cancel my account.

-m

I'll take that as a "no", Maurice?

I hope before Maurice cancels his account he can explain why David's comment led him to so many "..."s

Honestly, I was asking Guy's opinion because I respect it.

Obviously, I understand the benefits of staying with a single system.

But it would seem that PROs who truly require GREAT wide-angle lenses for their shots would also benefit a lot from a larger format, as well. Which is why I asked the question.

canon give this professional a sharp sharp well corrected ultra wide angle L and i will be happy. photokina??

So, I guess after Guy tells us we're all screwed we'll all be selling our Canon equipment and replacing it with Leicas. Well, maybe not, I guess I'll keep my 300 f/2.8IS, 500 f/4IS, and 600 f/4IS if I can find an adapter to fit a Leica. I'm sure I would rather have an 11 MP Leica than a 16.7 MP Canon...

DavidP wrote:
Guy,

Doesn't it actually make more sense for a PRO to be using medium format digicams for their wide-angle stuff, and using the 35mm for their longer reach stuff?

If (it's a big if, but I think it may well be true) that we've reached a point where going to smaller pixels isn't going to help us much, then surely the best way to get better images that require wide field-of-views is to use medium format, right?

The wide angle problem is a every bit as much a limitation on the MF digital backs as it is on the FF cameras, maybe worse. For example, the Hasselblad HC 35/3.5 (the widest for the H1/H2, and not particularly well regarded) is equivalent to about a 26mm lens on the H2D39 (that's a guesstimate doing the numbers in my head, but I think it's pretty close). And that Hassie 35 will set you back about 2700 USD, but that's OK, your pocket will be flush after buying the camera for $35,000 or so. If you want to go superwide on a digital back, you currently have to use Schneider Digitar lenses on a view camera or the Horseman SW/SWD bodies or Cambo Wide camera bodies. These combos alone run $4000 to $6000, not including the back!

Of course, Canon (or even Nikon) teles are the way to go for the long end. So a pro could schlep around something like this:

Cambo Wide + 1 Schneider Digitar lens to cover ultrawides.
Medium format system and 4-5 lenses of his choosing to cover moderate wide angles.
Canon 1ds2 and Canon Super-teles.

Yes it could be done, but why? All we need are some good super wide angle primes from Canon, more like the Contax 21 Distagon. People say "no one will buy these lenses, they are too narrow market, not broad enough".

timparkin wrote:
Hrow wrote:
Me thinks that many people here have missed Guy's point.

They are also arguing that canon is a shareholder run company, hence they'll only do what the shareholders want. But generally what the shareholders want is to hear good stuff being talked about the company in the semi-pro forums. Telling people not to talk about the shortcomings is going *make sure* they don't address those shortcomings.



Yeah, sure. Like the countless Microsoft employees that spent more time worryinag about the negative image much of the public had about the company than they spent thinking about the millions of dollars they were making. I personally don't know a lot of people that design a stock portfolio around the concept of "feeling really good about not making any money".

The point isn't hard to miss... Canon is screwing the entire photo industry by not introducing newer better wide angle primes.

You know I really like roast beef sandwhiches made quickly. I'm not going to run around complaining that McDonalds is screwing the fast food industry because they won't release a roast beef sandwhich. I'll just go to Arby's.

Game Tracker wrote:
Buy the right tool for the right job... whatever your job is. I needed a camera that would pick up a football player on the opposite side of the field, track him running at me up the sidline, shoot at 8 fps, and not hit the buffer before he reached the endzone. So, I bought a Canon 1D Mark II N and a 400mm f2.8L IS. I do not feel the need to yell at Leica because they cannot produce a camera with autofocus, fast frame rate, and huge buffer.

Some day, hopefully not too far in the future, Canon (or maybe a Zeiss EF mount) will address the wide angle problem. Will Leica address their's sooner? I don't think so. Canon is the most versatile system right now.

you are correct - if Guy doesn't need Canon so what
Guy - you need to stick to what works for you and don't bash the folks that are using Canon equip to make a living

ps - to Guy - I grew up with a mom you was an English major - when you refer to a company could you please use "their" instead of "there" thanks
it would be greatly appreciated - I do not like improper English

thanks
Kman

braindeadmac wrote:
Yes it could be done, but why?


The "why?" I'm thinking of is this:

At an equivalent pixel density, you can pack a LOT more pixels into a medium format sized sensor. (I'm talking full-frame, of course).

It seems to me that when you shoot wide angle, you'd really like LOTS more pixels than when shooting telephoto, just to capture as much detail as possible.

Granted, full-sized medium format sensors with 6 - 8 micron pixels doesn't exist . . yet.

nads wrote:
I'll just go to Arby's.


Hmmm Arby's.

Do they have a 4 for $5.95 deal on their WA primes?

Kmanphoto wrote:
it would be greatly appreciated - I do not like improper English



You know, the main English mistake that REALLY annoys me is the supposed "intelligent" people who INSIST on saying things like "between you and I".

I'm MUCH rather hear a "hick" say "between me and you".

It seems far more important to me to get the correct form of the pronoun that to get the correct order.


The second thing are phrases like (from a song):

Every man in this place would line up
If they knew what that seat really was


Arrrrgh. HE knew, HE knew, HE knew.

Wwll, I'm actually very happy with Canon. With the announcement of at least two relatively pointless items (one of which appears to be ludicrously priced), I am not even remotely tempted to acquire new kit. This was my reaction to the 5D as well, so to Canon I say; thank you! I don't need to withdraw money from my bank accounts in your honor.

Arka C.