nikt wrote:
And in fact , you were taking about buying a camera with a 'crop mode'. What if all future cameras had a 'crop mode'? You don't have to actually use it , you know.
Well, I see nothing wrong with the way Canon has done it thus far. I prefer APS-H, but no matter what, I don't want a camera with multiple crop factors. I have all the lenses I need for sports, so I don't need the "extra reach" a more severe crop gives me.
Surely Nikon created their crop mode in the D2X because the full res files were too big to go at 8 fps. Canon ought to be able to get bigger files through at 8 fps without having to crop by now.
ben_is_in wrote:
Well, I see nothing wrong with the way Canon has done it thus far. I prefer APS-H, but no matter what, I don't want a camera with multiple crop factors. I have all the lenses I need for sports, so I don't need the "extra reach" a more severe crop gives me.
Surely Nikon created their crop mode in the D2X because the full res files were too big to go at 8 fps. Canon ought to be able to get bigger files through at 8 fps without having to crop by now.
I suspect they can and will run att full speed on the 12MP files - they have included the crop to stop complaints from some of the sports shotters and PJs who some times have to squirt data through to head office through wireless connections and so on, and wwould not appreciate bigger files than the 1DII.
It is also there to stop complaints about edge softness/loosing reach and so on.
After a year or so I suspect that few will use it in crop mode.
Regards,
If smaller files are needed, shooters should just change the res in-camera instead of having to shoot with a cropped viewfinder/cropped or further cropped sensor. They can do that now anyway.
ben_is_in wrote:
If smaller files are needed, shooters should just change the res in-camera instead of having to shoot with a cropped viewfinder/cropped or further cropped sensor. They can do that now anyway.
What if you don't shoot jpg. I never do and have no intention of. I can quickly batch a lot of RAWs to jpg if they don't need much post processing anyway. That way I can apply my own sharpening and tone curve, colour, WB etc.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm now confused where this leaves a 5D replacement though.
Well it would theoretically leave more room for performance increases without encroaching on the 1 series market. A lot of room between a $4500 1 series and a $1500 30/40D camera.
RDKirk wrote:
It's exactly what I've been predicting for months.
I'll get your bozo button right out to you. No matter what is released, someone will have predicted it, and usually after the fact we are reminded of who they were. Here's to hoping I'll be pleased with the reality rather than disappointed by your predictions.
ben_is_in wrote: I prefer APS-H, but no matter what, I don't want a camera with multiple crop factors.
Just because you don't need it or don't want it, (even though you say you prefer it?) doesn't mean others wouldn't. I'd love this feature, the "crop away what you don't need" doesn't help fill the viewfinder or place the AF sensor on the subject. For those of us Dad's that want one camera for everything - small enough for travel but high fps for sports, a 5D-like camera (or better) with a selectable crop is exactly what I want.
As long as I'm posting to this thread, I'd point out that the general public doesn't read these forums nor speculate (or obsess) about the next camera, they think the 30D is a different, and better, camera from the 20D. I couldn't sell my 20D locally for $700, so sold the 30D I was going to keep for $1k, even though they were cheaper new at the time with the rebate. Makes no sense to me.
Scott T wrote:
Just because you don't need it or don't want it, (even though you say you prefer it?) doesn't mean others wouldn't. I'd love this feature, the "crop away what you don't need" doesn't help fill the viewfinder or place the AF sensor on the subject. For those of us Dad's that want one camera for everything - small enough for travel but high fps for sports, a 5D-like camera (or better) with a selectable crop is exactly what I want.
As long as I'm posting to this thread, I'd point out that the general public doesn't read these forums nor speculate (or obsess) about the next camera, they think the 30D is a different, and better, camera from the 20D. I couldn't sell my 20D locally for $700, so sold the 30D I was going to keep for $1k, even though they were cheaper new at the time with the rebate. Makes no sense to me....Show more →
I find your response very funny, and it's the second one of its kind since I started adding my comments to this thread. Look folks, I can only speak for myself and what I would want in a camera. I am well aware that what I want is often different from what others want, but why must I state that every time I express my opinion? I'm not trying to speak for the masses.
Also, you're confusing what I've been saying. I don't mind a crop factor. I shoot with a 20D and a 1D (I prefer 1.3 crop to 1.6). What I don't want is a crop mode like the D2X which goes from 1.5x to 2x for high speed. No matter what the crop factor is (if any), I want it to always stay the same for that particular camera.
Edited by ben_is_in on Feb 11, 2007 at 09:01 PM GMT
Edited by ben_is_in on Feb 11, 2007 at 09:06 PM GMT
Ok so here is my take on all this. Canon releases the new rebel in September. 10+ megapixels and self cleaning sensor( there might be more new options). So as this stands Canon has this for there lineup:
I can only see Canon releasing a whole new lineup minus the Rebel and 5d(might hae some changes). but definiatlly new 1dmk2 as well a 1dsmk2.
I would hope that in the model that replaces the 1dmk2n might be full frame and have something like 12 or 16mps while the replacement for the 1dsmk2 is going to be a high fashion 22mps camera that shoots like 5 fps. I really hope Canon releases a full frame camera that can do at least 6 frames a sec. I am crossing my fingers!!!!
Andrew Wood wrote:
Advice from my old marketing professor:
If you don't like a particular product/feature/service then you may not be in the target market for that particular product/feature/service
This is very true. But look at what Nikon has done with their D2X. If I'm a pro who wants more res than 4mp (D2H/s), but the same fps, I have to go with the D2X. But I don't like the crop mode in order to get the fps, so what do I do? I'm glad I don't shoot Nikon. I can't figure out why they haven't come out with a successor to the D2H that's 8mp or more.
For what it's worth, the 1DIIN is the perfect camera for me as far as res and fps go, but I would gladly accept the same camera with even better AF and even cleaner high ISOs. I have no problem with the bigger size/integrated vertical grip, because I almost always shoot portrait orientation anyway.
I don't understand why everyone thinks Canon has to cater to their everyone's wishes, want or even need for that matter. Canon isn't in the business of catering to Joe Schmoe's dream camera getup, it's in the business of making money for its shareholders. After all, Canon operates in a capitalist market environment.
The only reason Canon would cater to a particular market is if the size of the market reaches a critical mass whereby a particular technology can be made profitable. Also, the definition of the word profitable doesn't just mean that they won't lose money, it's means that if they are going to invest X dollars into technology Y, it would make them MORE money then investing X dollars into technology Z.
People have been complaining about the lack of a dedicated mirror lockup button for years (and I for one still wants one), but if Canon doesn't see that it will make them anymore money then they are now, why should it put one? If it catered to every whim of every person's fantasy camera feature, then it would end up with a bells and whistle laden camera that has every conceivable feature but would otherwise be unusable and overly expensive. This, or it would end up with so many different models as to make production uneconomical and end up sending the company into debt.
Moral: If you don't like what Canon puts out, suck it up or go to another manufacturer that meets your needs.
beewee wrote:
I don't understand why everyone thinks Canon has to cater to their everyone's wishes, want or even need for that matter. Canon isn't in the business of catering to Joe Schmoe's dream camera getup, it's in the business of making money for its shareholders. After all, Canon operates in a capitalist market environment.
The only reason Canon would cater to a particular market is if the size of the market reaches a critical mass whereby a particular technology can be made profitable. Also, the definition of the word profitable doesn't just mean that they won't lose money, it's means that if they are going to invest X dollars into technology Y, it would make them MORE money then investing X dollars into technology Z.
People have been complaining about the lack of a dedicated mirror lockup button for years (and I for one still wants one), but if Canon doesn't see that it will make them anymore money then they are now, why should it put one? If it catered to every whim of every person's fantasy camera feature, then it would end up with a bells and whistle laden camera that has every conceivable feature but would otherwise be unusable and overly expensive. This, or it would end up with so many different models as to make production uneconomical and end up sending the company into debt.
Moral: If you don't like what Canon puts out, suck it up or go to another manufacturer that meets your needs....Show more →
Canon, if you don't give me what I want, I will be forced to throw myself in front of an oncoming bus. I mean it this time, Canon. Please save my life.
beewee wrote:
I don't understand why everyone thinks Canon has to cater to their everyone's wishes, want or even need for that matter....
Moral: If you don't like what Canon puts out, suck it up or go to another manufacturer that meets your needs.
+1
beewee wrote:
I don't understand why everyone thinks Canon has to cater to their everyone's wishes, want or even need for that matter. Canon isn't in the business of catering to Joe Schmoe's dream camera getup, it's in the business of making money for its shareholders. After all, Canon operates in a capitalist market environment.
The only reason Canon would cater to a particular market is if the size of the market reaches a critical mass whereby a particular technology can be made profitable. Also, the definition of the word profitable doesn't just mean that they won't lose money, it's means that if they are going to invest X dollars into technology Y, it would make them MORE money then investing X dollars into technology Z.
People have been complaining about the lack of a dedicated mirror lockup button for years (and I for one still wants one), but if Canon doesn't see that it will make them anymore money then they are now, why should it put one? If it catered to every whim of every person's fantasy camera feature, then it would end up with a bells and whistle laden camera that has every conceivable feature but would otherwise be unusable and overly expensive. This, or it would end up with so many different models as to make production uneconomical and end up sending the company into debt.
Moral: If you don't like what Canon puts out, suck it up or go to another manufacturer that meets your needs....Show more →
Maybe you are forgetting they need us more than we need them. Our life goes on whether or not we buy a camera, theirs doesn't.
Moral of the story: If Canon don't like what I want, then they should go back to the drawing board until they meet my needs.
Canon EOS System was conceived, designed and marketed 20 years ago with special emphasis on:
1) Fastest autofocus speed/tracking
2) Ease-of-use (extension of the photographer's vision)
3) Future adaptability (with its fully electronic lens mount)
In the film era, each new model placed special emphasis on the AF system, fps, shutter/motor mechanism and ease-of-use in switching from one mode to the other as well as dialing in exposure compensation.
With the advent of digital imaging, Canon hasn't lose sight of the above 3 matters but most of the time, consumers and photo enthusiasts alike seem to be preoccupied with seeing higher megapixels and noise-level performances at ISO 800, 1600 and beyond.
Just because the competitions are trumpeting 10MP DSLRs, Canon need not have to follow them (the 400D needs to be 10MP because it is in the bread-and-butter category segment of the DSLR market). Canon prefers to do things its way, not in the company's policy to copy/imitate what others are doing. Even the dust cleaning system in the EOS 400D is different from those employed in the Sony alpha and Oylmpus/Leica/Panasonic DSLRs.
Photojournalists do not need 16.7MP or 22MP cameras. 8.2MP is adequate for most assignments. 10-12MP are still OK for them. Nature and wildlife photographers would welcome 10 and 12MP as such cameras allow them to enlarge their images to A1 and A0 posters for sale (they have been selling posters since film days). Not unusual to see the majority of them opted for the EOS 5D than 1Ds MK II.
Some National Geographic-contracted photographers may use either the EOS 5D and 1Ds MK II but this is due to the cameras' full-frame sensor rather than higher MP count!
Canon, if you don't give me what I want, I will be forced to throw myself in front of an oncoming bus. I mean it this time, Canon. Please save my life.
beewee wrote:
People have been complaining about the lack of a dedicated mirror lockup button for years (and I for one still wants one), but if Canon doesn't see that it will make them anymore money then they are now, why should it put one?
So is the print button making them more money? Maybe even increase Canon's reputation.
