zlatko wrote:
I don't understand why you are still using Canon if they were "too busy" to adjust your 40D — that was years ago. Sounds like a very basic warranty repair. And you still shoot Canon?
I'm not that quick to jump ship from event.
I'm sure I'd be flipping every year if I was.
Your point about Auto ISO "only" working on the 1DX and 7D2 remains FALSE. It doesn't work the way you want it too, so you claim it doesn't work. But I've used it thousands of times and know that it works every time and it works GREAT. If you're going to bash Canon at every opportunity, at least don't make stuff up.
It's only fully working on 7D2 and 1DX.
And speaking of making stuff up, this whole theory of manufacturer's "playing games" is just a way of demonizing people who design things differently than you would design them. Sometimes the presence or lack of a feature has nothing to do with "playing games" but rather with a very sensible design choice, albeit a design choice that doesn't please everyone.
Nonsense. The two specific examples I mentioned have nothing at all to do with design choices. A Canon rep at a show even flat out said they played games in the one case and examining firmware code shows an earlier game with the same thing.
And the AutoISO had nothing whatsoever to do with design choices or limitations or difficulties. It's a trivial thing.
Yes, sometimes the lack of a feature has to do with sensible design choice or other sensible reasons, but I am not talking about those cases here but two very specific examples. In the specific case of AutoISO (nor, IMO, the AFMA stuff) it has absolutely nothing to do with making sensible design decisions. I mean come on man, if you can't even admit it over AutoISO.... If you had the slightest idea about design and programming you'd understand what a trivial thing it is to implement it fully and completely and how clearly it was nothing to do with difficulty or a balancing act or making sensible design decisions. Ironically, it actually takes MORE code to do some of the things they did to limit it. So they were basically REMOVING code that placed locks and limitations on it over the years in some cases.
The point is, you don't actually KNOW what deliberations go into any product design at Canon or any other manufacturer. Even so, you spout off with theories about marketing malevolence and crippling this or that, etc. Clearly, anyone can be critic and engage in this public blame game — it's the easiest thing in the world. It doesn't take any actual knowledge.
skibum5 wrote:
I'm not that quick to jump ship from event.
I'm sure I'd be flipping every year if I was.
It's only fully working on 7D2 and 1DX.
Nonsense. The two specific examples I mentioned have nothing at all to do with design choices. A Canon rep at a show even flat out said they played games in the one case and examining firmware code shows an earlier game with the same thing.
And the AutoISO had nothing whatsoever to do with design choices or limitations or difficulties. It's a trivial thing.
Yes, sometimes the lack of a feature has to do with sensible design choice or other sensible reasons, but I am not talking about those cases here but two very specific examples. In the specific case of AutoISO (nor, IMO, the AFMA stuff) it has absolutely nothing to do with making sensible design decisions. I mean come on man, if you can't even admit it over AutoISO.... If you had the slightest idea about design and programming you'd understand what a trivial thing it is to implement it fully and completely and how clearly it was nothing to do with difficulty or a balancing act or making sensible design decisions. Ironically, it actually takes MORE code to do some of the things they did to limit it. So they were basically REMOVING code that placed locks and limitations on it over the years in some cases.
Actually it does take some actual knowledge. ...Show more →
Criticism is one of the easiest of human activities. It is not constrained by any knowledge, experience or anything else for that matter — facts are irrelevant to this enterprise. One can criticize a camera maker without knowing anything about their actual operations, about building cameras, running a business, or even doing photography. And there are no consequences to being wrong. It just takes an attitude of dissatisfaction. Imagining deliberations deep inside Canon and pretending they are real is just one example of how this works.
A Canon rep is made a whipping boy for some flippant remark that itself was likely not based on any personal knowledge of the decisions made half-way around the Earth. This is then re-interpreted as evidence the company is "playing games", which surely the Canon rep did not say. But it's easy to flip any comment like that. Such criticism is far removed from actual knowledge of the deliberations.
This is again that slippery slope apparently founded on the view that lower models should have features piled on from higher models. So if a 7D, 5D2 or some higher model has AFMA, then a 60D *must* have it too, just because AFMA exists. And the only possible reason a 60D doesn't have AFMA is that some malevolent anti-photographer marketing people were determined to "cripple" it. That's how easy criticism is.
The Auto ISO implementation on the 5D3 and 6D may be the result of specific input from specific photographers who described the specific implementation they desired. If so, they happened to describe an implementation that serves me very well. The fact that it was not more fully developed on those models may have the most benign and mundane explanation, such as a sense that the design was satisfactory to most users and that any revisions to it had near-zero priority when balanced against a long list of more pressing design changes and their time constraints.
But it's easy for a critic to come along and invent a whole theory of "crippling", where people behind the scenes scheme and plot to make a product that frustrates photographers and hinders their work, as if that will really build good will, sell more product or make photographers inclined to buy that brand again or upgrade. In the critic's mind, no benign or simple explanation is ever possible, satisfactory or realistic. Everything depends on a grim view of camera makers (or maybe just Canon) as being driven to do some wrong by their customers.
Amuses me when I read comments like "5D3 is getting overrun by Sony A7!". Reminds me of my younger days when a bouncer telling me the club was heaving but there was less than 10 people inside.
Retrofocus - Grant you, Sony has a better sensor. You are right about that. If digital photography only requires a sensor and nothing else, I think Sony may be a better camera than 5D3. Until then, the verdict is still dependent on your shooting style/needs.
As for some of the others, let's compare likes for likes. Comparing cameras released more than 18 months apart seems somewhat groundless. A life cycle of a product doesn't necessarily change just because the competition has the latest and greatest.
I can accept the comparisons of Canon to Nikon. After all, they are competing in the same ballpark. But let's be fair to Canon. The Nikon body in the FF space in the same year was D600 & D800. If you were a D600 owner and had to take a financial hit to change camera due to the oil issue, you may feel differently about Nikon. At least with a 5D3, you knew the sensor isn't industry leading before you bought it!
Canon still have a monster size selection of lenses. Maybe Canon doesn't do so well on body, but they are clearly taking a more holistic approach to their R&D by focusing on the entire photography range.
Lastly, it is fair to say that everyone will not agree which manufacturer is the best. Sony and the other mirrorless clearly pushing the boundaries harder but they all have their shortcomings. What works the best just depends on what your needs are and how u shoot.
felixj wrote:
Amuses me when I read comments like "5D3 is getting overrun by Sony A7!". Reminds me of my younger days when a bouncer telling me the club was heaving but there was less than 10 people inside.
Retrofocus - Grant you, Sony has a better sensor. You are right about that. If digital photography only requires a sensor and nothing else, I think Sony may be a better camera than 5D3. Until then, the verdict is still dependent on your shooting style/needs.
My point is that Canon so far did not come up with any competitive high MP/high DR camera as compared to the D800 released about the same time as the 5D MkIII. The mirrorless move from Sony which allows to attach a bunch of third party lenses was another hit for Canon for sure. I said in several posts before that the A7 series is not for everybody's shooting style. That's why many also switched or added a D800 series body. Issue here of course is that you need to invest in Nikon glass. But I know some who just bought the D800E with 14-24 mm lens for landscape work because Canon's camera bodies are no match here resolution- and DR-wise.
As for some of the others, let's compare likes for likes. Comparing cameras released more than 18 months apart seems somewhat groundless. A life cycle of a product doesn't necessarily change just because the competition has the latest and greatest.
The A7R uses a similar sensor already inside the D800E which was released about the same time as the 5D MkIII!
I can accept the comparisons of Canon to Nikon. After all, they are competing in the same ballpark. But let's be fair to Canon. The Nikon body in the FF space in the same year was D600 & D800. If you were a D600 owner and had to take a financial hit to change camera due to the oil issue, you may feel differently about Nikon. At least with a 5D3, you knew the sensor isn't industry leading before you bought it!
The D600 sensor is a 24 MP sensor whereas the D800(E) sensor has 36 MP. I compared the 5D MkIII with the D800 series because they were the competitive products at the time. The oil drop issue was a debacle for Nikon with the D600 but has nothing do do within the D800/5D MkIII comparison sensor-wise. The issue which the D800 had was a fairly disappointing LiveView performance. This is changed now at least with the D810.
Canon still have a monster size selection of lenses. Maybe Canon doesn't do so well on body, but they are clearly taking a more holistic approach to their R&D by focusing on the entire photography range.
I agree with this. Only we should also say that many EF lenses also now came down in price quite a bit due to lower demand.
Lastly, it is fair to say that everyone will not agree which manufacturer is the best. Sony and the other mirrorless clearly pushing the boundaries harder but they all have their shortcomings. What works the best just depends on what your needs are and how u shoot.
retrofocus wrote:
The oil drop issue was a debacle for Nikon with the D600 but has nothing do do within the D800/5D MkIII comparison sensor-wise. The issue which the D800 had was a fairly disappointing LiveView performance.
Actually, the sensor oil issue extends to the D800 as well, but perhaps not as prevalent as the D600 debacle. I have a shooting friend who had to send back his D800 no less than three times to resolve this issue, not to mention being screwed by Nikon who managed to send him somebody else's refurb. He has since gotten rid of his D800 at a loss and went on to a A7R.
I also have a cousin who has a D800 (yes, the D800 was very popular) who suffers because he tells me used D800 values are down in the dumps (this was prior to the D810).
zlatko wrote:
The Auto ISO implementation on the 5D3 and 6D may be the result of specific input from specific photographers who described the specific implementation they desired. If so, they happened to describe an implementation that serves me very well. The fact that it was not more fully developed on those models may have the most benign and mundane explanation, such as a sense that the design was satisfactory to most users and that any revisions to it had near-zero priority when balanced against a long list of more pressing design changes and their time constraints.
The last thing I will say on this is if they had pressing time constraints it would have taken less time to not have come up with any limit at all for the max min shutter, just don't put any limit at all. No limit and no 20 seconds of extra time coding wasted and no hour wasted in some focus group to come up with some limit for which there is no clear reasonable purpose to even have (and honestly it's hard to imagine they could find any focus group where everyone or even more than a few would tell them that the limit made sense, if they have actually found such a focus group then they have other really serious problems going on and if nobody on their staff could see the problem with the limitation, same story). And changing the limit would not be some crazy design process that involves time constraints, it'd be like deleting one number in the code and changing it to another number, not exactly some wild tricky time consuming process. How long does it take you to backspace delete a word you type and then to type a new word in it's place?
The coding for AutoISO is utterly trivial. I get the impression that maybe you have never dealt with anything technical, but it's literally at like the 1+1=2 kindergarten level. It's like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the time it takes to do the rest of the firmware. If it was so tricky that they had to go through hours of coding to get the basic concept down or to go back and tune it this way and that then there is no way they'd have anybody on staff who would have been capable of producing any DSLR at all. Much of the other stuff they have to do to get a camera working is a billion times more complex.
But it's easy for a critic to come along and invent a whole theory of "crippling", where people behind the scenes scheme and plot to make a product that frustrates photographers and hinders their work, as if that will really build good will, sell more product or make photographers inclined to buy that brand again or upgrade.
It probably doesn't build good will. Just look at how nuts all the comments are about the new Impossible marketing campaign. If the good will was still there in droves, I doubt you'd see so many posts going crazy over a little marketing campaign. it seems like a foolish move to me, since it's such a minor feature in the end and I'd bet they lose more good will over it than they gain in any upselling or upgrade selling over it (or maybe they do).
In the critic's mind, no benign or simple explanation is ever possible, satisfactory or realistic. Everything depends on a grim view of camera makers (or maybe just Canon) as being driven to do some wrong by their customers.
And in some cases the critic is probably actually correct. Do you really think that no company does stuff like this? Have you ever been to a marketing/design meeting? And sure sometimes it turns out to have been due to something else and the critic was wrong. In this very particular case it's hard to see how the critic could be wrong. And if they are wrong in this case, it's hard to see how that wouldn't point to even more serious things going wrong at the company.
... and that actual knowledge would actually be... ?
About the trivial amount of coding involved in implementing AutoISO in general and about how it takes no more time to put in no limit than an artificially slow limit. About what code was already in the 40D and locked out. About the sorts of things that sometimes go on at marketing/design meetings. About the fact that multiple people wrote to Canon an informed them about AutoISO years ago, so there is no way they can claim to have been clueless about how to fully implement it (not that I remotely think they needed to be clued in, for the engineers and an photographer there giving them advice it was surely trivial and obvious).
Imagemaster wrote:
Ah yes, my humble apologies. You were replying to a quote " ..... black autofocus squares against dark subjects in low light, ...... ", that had nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
It very much had to do with the subject of this thread, which is "At Canon, We See Impossible".
Isn't it amusing reading all the complaining about DR from Canon bodies not being up to the D800, while at the same time on the Nikon Forum, Nikon owners are complaining about impact damage accusations from Nikon when D800 owners send their cameras in for repair.
It amazes me that some of the posters in this thread still have Canon gear. They rail about all the deficiencies ad nauseum. Canon basically has ignored them and yet they still won't get the gear that provides them with the very thing they want. That is a special kind of fanboyism. Canon is lucky to have such a user base.
skibum5 wrote:
The last thing I will say on this is if they had pressing time constraints it would have taken less time to not have come up with any limit at all for the max min shutter, just don't put any limit at all. No limit and no 20 seconds of extra time coding wasted and no hour wasted in some focus group to come up with some limit for which there is no clear reasonable purpose to even have (and honestly it's hard to imagine they could find any focus group where everyone or even more than a few would tell them that the limit made sense, if they have actually found such a focus group then they have other really serious problems going on and if nobody on their staff could see the problem with the limitation, same story). And changing the limit would not be some crazy design process that involves time constraints, it'd be like deleting one number in the code and changing it to another number, not exactly some wild tricky time consuming process. How long does it take you to backspace delete a word you type and then to type a new word in it's place?
The coding for AutoISO is utterly trivial. I get the impression that maybe you have never dealt with anything technical, but it's literally at like the 1+1=2 kindergarten level. It's like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the time it takes to do the rest of the firmware. If it was so tricky that they had to go through hours of coding to get the basic concept down or to go back and tune it this way and that then there is no way they'd have anybody on staff who would have been capable of producing any DSLR at all. Much of the other stuff they have to do to get a camera working is a billion times more complex.
It probably doesn't build good will. Just look at how nuts all the comments are about the new Impossible marketing campaign. If the good will was still there in droves, I doubt you'd see so many posts going crazy over a little marketing campaign. it seems like a foolish move to me, since it's such a minor feature in the end and I'd bet they lose more good will over it than they gain in any upselling or upgrade selling over it (or maybe they do).
And in some cases the critic is probably actually correct. Do you really think that no company does stuff like this? Have you ever been to a marketing/design meeting? And sure sometimes it turns out to have been due to something else and the critic was wrong. In this very particular case it's hard to see how the critic could be wrong. And if they are wrong in this case, it's hard to see how that wouldn't point to even more serious things going wrong at the company. ...Show more →
Yes, it's hard for the critic to see how the critic can be wrong. It's hard for the critic to see how the omission of the critic's desired trivial code was anything but the work of malevolent marketing people hellbent on "crippling" one of the company's star products (5D3). It's hard for the critic see how the critic's desired trivial code could be overlooked or set aside when there is a lot of other stuff to do that's a billion times more complex. It's hard for a critic to see how *any* feature/setting/option can be left out of a camera if it takes just a tiny little bit of extra time to add it — because, you know, at a big manufacturer you can just *add* stuff if it takes a few seconds. Why would the critic imagine a benign or rational explanation for anything when that would be inconsistent with his theory that the company is run irrationally or worse?
ggreene wrote:
It amazes me that some of the posters in this thread still have Canon gear. They rail about all the deficiencies ad nauseum. Canon basically has ignored them and yet they still won't get the gear that provides them with the very thing they want. That is a special kind of fanboyism. Canon is lucky to have such a user base.
Agreed, it is amazing. As they say, money talks. If I get fed up with a brand, it is SOLD and replaced.
ggreene wrote:
It amazes me that some of the posters in this thread still have Canon gear. They rail about all the deficiencies ad nauseum. Canon basically has ignored them and yet they still won't get the gear that provides them with the very thing they want. That is a special kind of fanboyism. Canon is lucky to have such a user base.
I think many have supplemented their Canon gear with the Sony A7R. There is no need to sell your collection of Canon mount lenses. This gives you the best of both worlds...great sensor with great glass.
Paul Mo wrote:
DR isn't from the bodies. Canon makes 93.76% great camera bodies, but scores 41.39% for their sensors.
Now, bring a new gen. sensor into well-built bodies... ah, see how easy that was?
I am wonder how many canon bodies be flooded on craigslist and B&S forum if canon had 15 stops DR bodies releasing next month. For sure, you can count me one. It is amusing just to think all canon DR cheer leaders dancing all year long with their tip toes. At this forum, we have seen so many impossible thing has happen to many individual
