Gunzorro wrote:
As we all know, despite your touting, the Sony a7 cameras are limited application devices, very limited. Flash, action, AF with Canon lenses, accessories a pro might depend on for general shooting of a commercial nature -- not applicable.
True, in my opinion the Exmor is a great sensor surrounded by a slightly toy-like build.
Paul Mo wrote:
True, in my opinion the Exmor is a great sensor surrounded by a slightly toy-like build.
I agree completely. In the Sony a7-series have limited application use with Canon lenses, although it rocks DR and IQ.
But we are practically in the 1860's wet-plate era for set-up and procedure -- that's a huge step back in convenience and spontaneity -- those points are mostly brushed under the carpet as not worthy pursuits. I've shot plenty of view camera and other formats from a tripod -- heck, some of my favorite gear is tripods! -- but that doesn't mean that calculated style of shooting is my main interest.
Sony completely defeats the approach afforded by the new 24IS and 35IS, as well as other lenses I enjoy hand holding (50L, 100L, 28-300L -- you get the idea!).
Nothing against the studied approach and pre-visualization with a tripod. I've nearly bought a Sony a7 a couple times, but I always pull back, knowing it would become a larger and more expensive version of my mostly silly toe-dip into M4/3 and the use of the few Alt lenses I have about. These lenses are fun, but again, I did manual focus for decades -- I'm so over it now that Canon has had generally accurate AF for around a dozen years or so.
retro and a few others just don't know when to stop gloating and running on past the point that people say, "Got the message on the hundredth time!"
Geoff D F wrote:
Not sure of the value of a PR stunt that ends up annoying the customer base. I am so glad I have shifted the bulk of my kit away from Canon.
It didn't annoy the customer base. First, the vast majority of Canon's customer base doesn't know about this. So that leaves a small percentage of Canon users who frequent forums such as these who even knew about the announcement. Secondly, Canon's product line is made up of many different products, and not just DSLR products. So not all of Canon's customer base is made up of DSLR users. Third, of the customer base who are DSLR users, and who did see the announcement, many people are not annoyed. Fourth, nothing in the teaser was indicative that this was going to be a camera announcement, so why did you make that assumption?
In reality, a tiny, tiny, very tiny fraction of Canon's customer base are annoyed. The overwhelming majority are 1) not camera customers, 2) did not know about the annoucement, and 3) not annoyed.
A better camera will come in time. I suppose if you're that ridiculously impatient, you can switch over to Nikon or Sony. But I'm sure we'll see you again in a few years when Canon has introduced a new camera that becomes a market leader, and your Sony or Nikon is no longer the best, and you start whining incessantly about how they need to make a camera that's equivalent.
mihind24 wrote:
It didn't annoy the customer base. First, the vast majority of Canon's customer base doesn't know about this. So that leaves a small percentage of Canon users who frequent forums such as these who even knew about the announcement. Secondly, Canon's product line is made up of many different products, and not just DSLR products. So not all of Canon's customer base is made up of DSLR users. Third, of the customer base who are DSLR users, and who did see the announcement, many people are not annoyed. Fourth, nothing in the teaser was indicative that this was going to be a camera announcement, so why did you make that assumption?
In reality, a tiny, tiny, very tiny fraction of Canon's customer base are annoyed. The overwhelming majority are 1) not camera customers, 2) did not know about the annoucement, and 3) not annoyed.
A better camera will come in time. I suppose if you're that ridiculously impatient, you can switch over to Nikon or Sony. But I'm sure we'll see you again in a few years when Canon has introduced a new camera that becomes a market leader, and your Sony or Nikon is no longer the best, and you start whining incessantly about how they need to make a camera that's equivalent. ...Show more →
Market leader and the best are not synonymous...Canon makes good cameras, just not the best.
I certainly wasn't annoyed with the teaser. What I have is more than good enough for large prints and getting vivid twilight images. Even if something with double rez/DR and FB integrated debuted I wouldn't buy. Maybe, the return of ECF would get me to reach for my MC/VISA. But, yeah, I suspect DSLR customers are but a small percentage of Canon's business. Medical, office, industrial, etc., are likely to be where the big bucks come from.
Very glad Canon is tiptoeing around mirrorless. I bought and tried to use four different EVFs during the past three years and it was totally a grin 'n bare affair. They made me feel like I was going cross-eyed with fading vision, especially in bright light. I really appreciate the clarity, comfort and ease of use of my 6D VF.
Gunzorro wrote:
I agree completely. In the Sony a7-series have limited application use with Canon lenses, although it rocks DR and IQ.
But we are practically in the 1860's wet-plate era for set-up and procedure -- that's a huge step back in convenience and spontaneity -- those points are mostly brushed under the carpet as not worthy pursuits. I've shot plenty of view camera and other formats from a tripod -- heck, some of my favorite gear is tripods! -- but that doesn't mean that calculated style of shooting is my main interest.
Sony completely defeats the approach afforded by the new 24IS and 35IS, as well as other lenses I enjoy hand holding (50L, 100L, 28-300L -- you get the idea!).
Nothing against the studied approach and pre-visualization with a tripod. I've nearly bought a Sony a7 a couple times, but I always pull back, knowing it would become a larger and more expensive version of my mostly silly toe-dip into M4/3 and the use of the few Alt lenses I have about. These lenses are fun, but again, I did manual focus for decades -- I'm so over it now that Canon has had generally accurate AF for around a dozen years or so.
retro and a few others just don't know when to stop gloating and running on past the point that people say, "Got the message on the hundredth time!" ...Show more →
Must be tough for you with your severe Canon brand addiction to hear so many here criticize Canon's course and developments. It must be even harder for you to diversify in gear and use what's really best for you and not for a single brand.
But I understand and agree with your point about AF - this is a matter of personal preference especially when AF is so absolutely needed to take still photos from the backyard or nearby shopping malls. But yes, AF and IS definitely helps to take those shots fast and quickly when someone has shaky hands and headache by all those who criticize his favorite brand - but wait, you are using tilt/shift lenses, right? Must be a hassle for you to use them.Why do you elsewhere say you like them so much when you are "so over manual focus which you did for decades"? Again an inconsistency in your statements.
I am glad that I added the A7R beginning of this year which provided me with great shots which I could have also composed with my 5D MkII but not with the much more precise focus through focus peaking in the A7R and the DR I get in one single shot. Happy to use my Canon gear in combination with Sony and other MF lens gear. Best time ever in digital photography!
retrofocus wrote:
Must be tough for you with your severe Canon brand addiction to hear so many here criticize Canon's course and developments. It must be even harder for you to diversify in gear and use what's really best for you and not for a single brand.
But I understand and agree with your point about AF - this is a matter of personal preference especially when AF is so absolutely needed to take still photos from the backyard or nearby shopping malls. But yes, AF and IS definitely helps to take those shots fast and quickly when someone has shaky hands and headache by all those who criticize his favorite brand - but wait, you are using tilt/shift lenses, right? Must be a hassle for you to use them.Why do you elsewhere say you like them so much when you are "so over manual focus which you did for decades"? Again an inconsistency in your statements.
I am glad that I added the A7R beginning of this year which provided me with great shots which I could have also composed with my 5D MkII but not with the much more precise focus through focus peaking in the A7R and the DR I get in one single shot. Happy to use my Canon gear in combination with Sony and other MF lens gear. Best time ever in digital photography!...Show more →
You use an A7r...didn't know that. Learnt something new here...
zlatko wrote:
You just make this stuff up? Auto ISO works GREAT on the 5D3 and 6D. And not having it certainly doesn't "cripple" any camera.
It doesn't work great when you need EC since that is not available in M mode. And in the other modes they put in an artificial limit on the max min shutter speed you can set (they limit it to just the slow shutter speeds where you'd likely be shooting stuff you'd have time to set everything all on your own anyway). (although a side branch of ML has removed the silly limit marketing put in on the max min shutter speed for the 5D3)
They finally appear to have fixed it all with the 7D2.
The earlier implementations were even more silly where 'auto'ISO locked it at ISO400 in M mode and so on.
It's like 4 lines of code and a 10 cent feature, but they slowly dribbled out ever ever so slightly less crippled versions every round. It was absurd. If they need AUtoIOS to sell the 1 series or whatnot, they are doing that stuff wrong.
I didn't say it crippled the cameras or made them unusable overall just that they crippled that feature.
skibum5 wrote:
It doesn't work great when you need EC since that is not available in M mode. And in the other modes they put in an artificial limit on the max min shutter speed you can set (they limit it to just the slow shutter speeds where you'd likely be shooting stuff you'd have time to set everything all on your own anyway). (although a side branch of ML has removed the silly limit marketing put in on the max min shutter speed for the 5D3)
They finally appear to have fixed it all with the 7D2.
The earlier implementations were even more silly where 'auto'ISO locked it at ISO400 in M mode and so on.
It's like 4 lines of code and a 10 cent feature, but they slowly dribbled out ever ever so slightly less crippled versions every round. It was absurd. If they need AUtoIOS to sell the 1 series or whatnot, they are doing that stuff wrong.
I didn't say it crippled the cameras or made them unusable overall just that they crippled that feature.
Aha, I see, they didn't design it exactly the way you want it, so you say it doesn't work. I happen to love this feature as implemented on the 5D3 and 6D, so for me it works *wonderfully* and doesn't need to be "fixed".
zlatko wrote:
Aha, I see, they didn't design it exactly the way you want it, so you say it doesn't work. I happen to love this feature as implemented on the 5D3 and 6D, so for me it works *wonderfully* and doesn't need to be "fixed".
Wow you are really reaching for straws now. Fine, you never run into any scenario where the camera tends to over or under expose so you never need EC, but look around the forums and you'll I'm not alone. And look at any other DSLR maker and you'll see they allowed EC for ages. Heck, why do they even bother to put in EC mode in any mode then if EC is useless?
And how do you defend the fact that they used to lock AutoISO out of M mode while also giving no shutter speed limits for Av mode?
It's nothing about some magical, fancy design just to my exact specs, it's pretty darn simple to understand that AutoISO should let you do everything you can normally do only the ISO gets automatically changed and that means working in M mode, allowing for EC in all modes and allowing for high shutter limits for lowest allowed shutter speeds. It's stuff a 2nd day programmer could code. Heck someone on ML already hacked up his own AutoISO for 5D3 and it's just a few lines of code and it does it all.
skibum5 wrote:
Wow you are really reaching for straws now. Fine, you never run into any scenario where the camera tends to over or under expose so you never need EC, but look around the forums and you'll I'm not alone. And look at any other DSLR maker and you'll see they allowed EC for ages. Heck, why do they even bother to put in EC mode in any mode then if EC is useless?
And how do you defend the fact that they used to lock AutoISO out of M mode while also giving no shutter speed limits for Av mode?
It's nothing about some magical, fancy design just to my exact specs, it's pretty darn simple to understand that AutoISO should let you do everything you can normally do only the ISO gets automatically changed and that means working in M mode, allowing for EC in all modes and allowing for high shutter limits for lowest allowed shutter speeds. It's stuff a 2nd day programmer could code. Heck someone on ML already hacked up his own AutoISO for 5D3 and it's just a few lines of code and it does it all. ...Show more →
Again, they didn't design it your way, so you say it doesn't work. When I use Manual, everything is manual. If I'm using Auto ISO, it is in Av mode where it works great with any EC that's needed. But some guy hacked the 5D3 to work a different way, so that's how Canon *should* have made it work, notwithstanding input from their professional users?
retrofocus wrote:
Must be tough for you with your severe Canon brand addiction to hear so many here criticize Canon's course and developments. It must be even harder for you to diversify in gear and use what's really best for you and not for a single brand.
But I understand and agree with your point about AF - this is a matter of personal preference especially when AF is so absolutely needed to take still photos from the backyard or nearby shopping malls. But yes, AF and IS definitely helps to take those shots fast and quickly when someone has shaky hands and headache by all those who criticize his favorite brand - but wait, you are using tilt/shift lenses, right? Must be a hassle for you to use them.Why do you elsewhere say you like them so much when you are "so over manual focus which you did for decades"? Again an inconsistency in your statements.
I am glad that I added the A7R beginning of this year which provided me with great shots which I could have also composed with my 5D MkII but not with the much more precise focus through focus peaking in the A7R and the DR I get in one single shot. Happy to use my Canon gear in combination with Sony and other MF lens gear. Best time ever in digital photography!...Show more →
+1, contrast AF is custom built for sniper only whenever dead target is needed
zlatko wrote:
Again, they didn't design it your way, so you say it doesn't work. When I use Manual, everything is manual. If I'm using Auto ISO, it is in Av mode where it works great with any EC that's needed. But some guy hacked the 5D3 to work a different way, so that's how Canon *should* have made it work, notwithstanding input from their professional users?
It's not "MY way" it's the way everyone else designs it when they don't cripple it and the way they have it on the 1 series and now 7D2. It's the obvious way to design it when not crippling it. It was obvious from day 1 and others did it that way from day 1.
So you think that 1/250th shutter speed is good enough for most sports and wildlife? Because Canon marketing crippled the 5D3/6D shutter speed max min setting to that value (for absolutely zero technical or photographic reason).
If you look around you'll see that many find M mode to be the most desired mode for AutoISO of all. You set what matters, the shutter speed and aperture and then the camera just floats the sensor gain around as needed. In some scenarios the metering might tend to over or underexpose on avg and then EC can help.
skibum5 wrote:
It's not "MY way" it's the way everyone else designs it when they don't cripple it and the way they have it on the 1 series and now 7D2. It's the obvious way to design it when not crippling it. It was obvious from day 1 and others did it that way from day 1.
So you think that 1/250th shutter speed is good enough for most sports and wildlife? Because Canon marketing crippled the 5D3/6D shutter speed max min setting to that value (for absolutely zero technical or photographic reason).
If you look around you'll see that many find M mode to be the most desired mode for AutoISO of all. You set what matters, the shutter speed and aperture and then the camera just floats the sensor gain around as needed. In some scenarios the metering might tend to over or underexpose on avg and then EC can help.
You wrote "still only 1DX and 7D2 have it [Auto ISO] working" which is outright false. Only when challenged with the fact that it works very well on the 5D3 and 6D did you *qualify* your statement by saying Auto ISO should have been designed differently.
Canon's Auto ISO on the 5D3 and 6D is similar to Leica's on the M9 & ME, except that that those cameras only allow setting the minimum shutter speed no faster than 1/125th with Auto ISO (not even 1/250th). So not "everybody" builds Auto ISO your "obvious" way. Leica actually made an even more limited version of Auto ISO with their new M240. A "crippling theorist" would assert that this was all the work of malevolent marketing people determined to "protect" some more expensive camera that had an un-crippled Auto ISO implementation — except that there was no such model. In each case, they were listening to certain photographers that gave them input at the design stage — but obviously those photographers didn't represent the entire world of photographers that might use their product.
When someone has an anti-manufacturer bias and resentment, it's easy to come up with theories of "crippling" and to blame everything that isn't built your way and at your price level on "marketing". Those theories cost about $0.02 and can be leveled against any manufacturer. They don't depend on knowing any facts about any actual input to or deliberations by the manufacturer. Moreover, they completely overlook obvious cost differences with some items, such as AF systems. According to this way of thinking, every camera model is "crippled" if it doesn't have every feature of more expensive cameras from the same manufacturer or even from other manufacturers. And every model is "crippled" if it doesn't have every "obvious" feature of every successor model that will be introduced in the next several years. Underlying this way of thinking is the presumption that manufacturers have absolutely unlimited resources to build anything at any price and in any time frame, and can (and should) produce without giving any thought to profiting from their work.
Can't help but laugh at these paranoids thinking camera manufactures have personal vendettas against them that they selectively hold back features that no one really cares about except for them.
retrofocus wrote:
Must be tough for you with your severe Canon brand addiction to hear so many here criticize Canon's course and developments. It must be even harder for you to diversify in gear and use what's really best for you and not for a single brand.
But I understand and agree with your point about AF - this is a matter of personal preference especially when AF is so absolutely needed to take still photos from the backyard or nearby shopping malls. But yes, AF and IS definitely helps to take those shots fast and quickly when someone has shaky hands and headache by all those who criticize his favorite brand - but wait, you are using tilt/shift lenses, right? Must be a hassle for you to use them.Why do you elsewhere say you like them so much when you are "so over manual focus which you did for decades"? Again an inconsistency in your statements.
I am glad that I added the A7R beginning of this year which provided me with great shots which I could have also composed with my 5D MkII but not with the much more precise focus through focus peaking in the A7R and the DR I get in one single shot. Happy to use my Canon gear in combination with Sony and other MF lens gear. Best time ever in digital photography!...Show more →
Retro, you are a piece of work!
I've made it clear in many posts (with examples) that the Canon TSE and Macro lenses are some of my all-time favorites. I don't have to enjoy manual focus to enjoy the TSE image quality and control. It's not a matter of my being unable to manual focus, I simply prefer to be freed of the task when possible. Apparently you forget those kinds of details.
I doubt that I'm alone in wishing you would post more photos and examples here of your experiences with Canon gear (or whatever other brand on the Alt forum) rather than your continual negative blather.
Gunzorro wrote:
I agree completely. In the Sony a7-series have limited application use with Canon lenses, although it rocks DR and IQ.
But we are practically in the 1860's wet-plate era for set-up and procedure -- that's a huge step back in convenience and spontaneity -- those points are mostly brushed under the carpet as not worthy pursuits.
I don't really disagree with you, but for the cases where I need the super reoslution and DR, also the ergonomics of the A7r is for me better than a DSLR. This comes down to (not complete list):
- The Metabones adapter is very good for tripod mounting, and the camera and lens balances better than mounting the camera on the tripod.
- The small size of the camera makes it more stable in windy conditions.
- The tiltable LCD makes it a joy to use the tripod in a low position.
- EVF with focus magnification is in some cases better than AF for handheld work.
I don't think that Sony cameras ergonomics suck. I would rather say that the A7 cameras are tailored for manual focus, with some support for autofocus, while Canon DSLR's are tailored to autofocus with some support for manual focus.
This is why a 1D style 46 MP camera doesn't tempt me for landscape work, and hardly a 5D style camera.
