I am personally very glad about release on d800. I cant see now canon putting anything short of at least the 7D autofocus in 5d3. I for the first time started looking at the lens lineup for nikon yesterday, since I already own the 14-24 that I use on 5dII. Then I came to my senses. It will cost way to much to switch, and I am about 95% certain that there is enough market pressure on canon now to produce a 3K high MP camera with good autofocus. Once I started using my 7D, I really started wishing I could confidently use my off center AF points with my 5dII. The second part of my not being interested in switching is the 85L, 24-105, and 100-400L. Canon still has a better and more complete line up of lenses.
I am happy for all the Nikon shooters, as well as canon shooters, in that competition will help.
I do think the d800 is really a game changer, and a camera that from a spec standpoint is a do it all perfect body for me.
Jim Victory wrote:
Artsupreme has a point about the fact that Nikon has two generations of the D700 and now D800 with features found in their Pro line and Canon has yet to introduce any camera with these features except their Pro line. I simply don't understand why Canon continues to follow this trend and I'm not the only long time user that is getting fed up.
Jim
There is some indication that this changed when the 7d was offered. The 7d offered AF complexities/speed more similar to the 1d line then anything else at a fraction of the cost. Even 2.5 years later you see all the threads asking for recommendations between the 7d and 1d series (yes we all know the 1d series are better cameras )
Of course we won't know anything until the new cameras are announced.
On a slightly side note.. I'm surprised I don't hear more complaining about the D800's max native ISO of 6400. Of course we have no idea how good that ISO6400 is yet but if Canon pulls off a stop or 2 higher native ISO I think that would be a big win in one column even if they don't deliver on something else.
Monito wrote:
You over-estimate the power of the squeaky wheels using the Internet Amplification Device. The only screaming is from the screaming ninnies who think Canon (and every other manufacturer) owes them a camera.
Canon does things in their own time, quite successfully.
They didn't make the first AutoFocus cameras. They didn't make the first Through-the-Lens metering systems. And so forth.
My how perspectives differ. Those that don't share the complacent view of the apologists or actually understand what is being done to them are "screaming ninnies"?
Did you ever stop to think that just maybe they understand things you don't? Did you ever stop to think that some people have needs that exceed yours? Personally, while I think that there are a lot of people smarter than I am in many areas, I don't count the Canon marketing people among them. I actually find them dumber than posts.
Who cares what Canon did in the past? Every manufacturer can match or exceed anything Canon is doing today, and I do mean any thing and every manufacturer.
Borrowing from Kennedy (paraphrasing Shaw) we can separate people into at least two camps here
"There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not"?
I'll take someone that wants change for the better, pushes manufacturers to do better and offer more, and helps move things forward over an accepting apologist any day.
BTW - I've been listening to people say it can't be done, it's too many MB (not GB) on a card, it's too taxing for lenses, decent AF is too expensive, we have to accept crippled gear, etc. for over 12 years of shooting digital cameras. "Ninnies" is right...
jamesf99 wrote:
Borrowing from Kennedy (paraphrasing Shaw) we can separate people into at least two camps here
"There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not"?
Oh, you do clothe yourself in such lustrous robes.
Kennedy was not a whiner. He was talking about doing. His questioning was a prelude to making change happen by doing something, since he went on to say "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country". The whiners here moan and groan and don't do much about anything. They over-estimate their influence: "Feel our power for we ROAR!".
Here's some action to take, with options, if you don't like what Canon is offering (since you don't):
1) Sell up and buy Sony equipment or Nikon or Olympus. With the latter you get a wholesale crippling of a company you can complain about.
OR
2) Don't buy or sell. Use what you have to make great photographs.
Monito wrote:
Oh, you do clothe yourself in such lustrous robes.
Kennedy was not a whiner. He was talking about doing. His questioning was a prelude to making change happen by doing something, since he went on to say "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country". The whiners here moan and groan and don't do much about anything. They over-estimate their influence: "Feel our power for we ROAR!".
Here's some to take, with options, if you don't like what Canon is offering (since you don't):
1) Sell up and buy Sony equipment or Nikon or Olympus. With the latter you get a wholesale crippling of a company you can complain about.
OR
2) Don't buy or sell. Use what you have to make great photographs. ...Show more →
Yep. I did the latter. Didn't buy 5D2, because I held a certain opinion on its AF performance. But then, my opinion was invalidated by "you don't own the camera so STFU!" I guess only my wallet was happy in the end. ;-)
jamesf99 wrote:
Personally, while I think that there are a lot of people smarter than I am in many areas, I don't count the Canon marketing people among them. I actually find them dumber than posts.
This makes no sense. "Marketing people" have nothing to do with R&D or the products that they make. Decisions on what products to pursue, develop and produce are made at the CEO-level, not by the guys that decide which font to use on an advertisement. Oh, and I am one of those guys and although I may be dumber than a post, your statement doesn't say much for your intelligence either.
jamesf99 wrote:
I'll take someone that wants change for the better, pushes manufacturers to do better and offer more, and helps move things forward over an accepting apologist any day.
I do agree on this point though. Maybe you're not as dumb as a post.
surf monkey wrote:
This makes no sense. "Marketing people" have nothing to do with R&D or the products that they make. Decisions on what products to pursue, develop and produce are made at the CEO-level, not by the guys that decide which font to use on an advertisement. Oh, and I am one of those guys and although I may be dumber than a post, your statement doesn't say much for your intelligence either.
This is way off topic but... It all depends on the type of marketing you're talking about. There is "product marketing" that absolutely determines which feature sets will be produced. They are the ones that supposedly know the market and know what the customers really want. These are not the same people who do the communication marketing (that guys who decide which font to use )
I wasn't trying to suggest I was in the company of RFK or Shaw, but after decades in tech I sure do know the difference between apologist and those who move things forward.
Is whining an unwillingness to settle, the ability to know when you're being handed a load of crap, or knowing the difference between piss and rain?
Like you, I'll continue to use what I have. It's frustrating because I've wanted to give money to Canon, but they've made it nearly impossible for me. As it appears today, when the time comes I'll buy gear from vendors that understand the market has changed. They can always redeem themselves, but I don't think that will be anytime soon unfortunately. N.B. my position is the same irrespective of the worthless dollar, that has only made it seem more untenable.
surf monkey wrote:
This makes no sense. "Marketing people" have nothing to do with R&D or the products that they make. Decisions on what products to pursue, develop and produce are made at the CEO-level, not by the guys that decide which font to use on an advertisement. Oh, and I am one of those guys and although I may be dumber than a post, your statement doesn't say much for your intelligence either.
Dumb as a post? Moi? sorry, don't think so...
Huh? It is ALL marketing. Repeat after me, it IS all marketing. R&D only comes into play with what CAN be sold, not what IS sold. You also think Canon's CEO is making decisions on what features are include in a camera body Are you kidding me
palmor wrote:
This is way off topic but... It all depends on the type of marketing you're talking about. There is "product marketing" that absolutely determines which feature sets will be produced. They are the ones that supposedly know the market and know what the customers really want. These are not the same people who do the communication marketing (that guys who decide which font to use )
John
Thank you John... I think he's terribly confused about what he does for a living...
surf monkey wrote:
This makes no sense. "Marketing people" have nothing to do with R&D or the products that they make. Decisions on what products to pursue, develop and produce are made at the CEO-level, not by the guys that decide which font to use on an advertisement. Oh, and I am one of those guys and although I may be dumber than a post, your statement doesn't say much for your intelligence either.
I think it depends whether you are talking more the late in the game 100% pure ad men marketers or the other kind.
I know so many engineers who bitch about things the latter kind have done.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
You can't compare specs/prices from 3 year old bodies with the new ones coming out later this year. A new Canon replacement will of course also be better than the 5DII you are comparing it against.
Do you really belived they had this body ready a few years back, but they did some crippling
My point is canon made a AF sytem in an amateur body EOS3 (film) 8-10 years ago that would outfocus (fast and accurate) a 5dII any day any situation. The 1ds focused perfectly 6 years ago. So yes I am saying that Canon intentionally left the AF on the 5dIi mediocre as to not hurt the sales of the 1dsIII. Sadly Canon Management is all about marketing not about cutting edge or better product. Read the comments from the Canon ceo about the 5dII http://www.dpreview.com/news/2008/10/3/_canoninterview One of the most common complaints we've seen about the 5D Mark II is that it still has the same AF system as the original 5D. Why is this?
"Firstly the market's evaluation of the 5D's AF system has been very positive; there have been no complaints from users, with everyone saying it's very good. Given that, to a certain extent, we think we shouldn't change it. And also there's some limitation with size; the AF sensor in the 50D is very big; the one in the 5D is much smaller. If we wanted to have all cross-sensors in the 5D Mark II, it would mean we might have to sacrifice the compactness of the body. It's all a question of balance of features and benefits."
Interestingly Nikon kind of Killed their D3x. so I wont doubt there will be a d4x very soon.
I earn money from my equipment and currently use 7D, 5Dc, 1Ds III. Each has it's own uses for my client base. So far I have no need to expand but once I start getting higher end clients, wanting really large prints then maybe I will upgrade.
I have a nice canvas 24x30 from a 30D and it was fine. I would love to go to medium format but until I get the client base, it is not worth the investment. I still have my RB67 film outfit which still produces stunning results.
kakomu wrote:
In all fairness, they put the 3-series AF in a 1 series body. The EOS-3 came out several years before the 1V and the 1N had a 5 point AF system.
The EOS 3 was the test bed for the EOS 1V. It was always known they used the EOS 3 to refine and get feedback of this brand new 45pt AF before putting it in something as important as their flagship. 1V came out 2 years after the EOS 3 and basically only altered the AF by using a faster clocked cpu.
Monito wrote:
Canon cameras make great photos now and in the past. They are a little easier to use now than past models.
My camera still makes photos just as good as it did when I bought it. Better, in fact, because I have progressed.
If you bought the cameras at the time and didn't quickly return them as inadequate then, then they are not inadequate now.
If you don't like current offerings, don't buy.
The percentage of people who actually require the latest and the greatest for producing money is very very small and unlikely to include whiners on forums. Pros who reach that decision just buy what they feel they need, quietly and without a lot of fuss, without having to have their egos massaged in public by making dramatic pronouncements.
It amazes me what a high percentage of people are prevented from making good photos by some perceived lack of automation. The only other alternative I can see is that they are so terrifyingly awesome photographers that they are held back by their equipment in creativity; but I think it is highly unlikely that would apply to any of the whiners....Show more →
You are the grand prize winner in the totally missed the point contest .. calling other people whiners because they point out a manufacturers flawed crippling profit model just makes you look totally uninformed. Which you probably are.
So instead of name calling and presenting moronic conclusions like "a high percentage of people are prevented from making good photos by some perceived lack of automation" why don't you speak to the point at hand .. that point being Canon's dependence on their product crippling profit model is coming back to bite them big time.
)
Are you kidding me