Nope, I still say the proof is in the photos. If the other guy shows you 10 photos that are better than yours this proves that the other system is as good at taking photos as your system is. If it took 1000 shots to get those 10 then that means that the camera might not make the job as easy as your camera but is still capable of excellent results.
+1
As the quoted member says, it is all in the picture quality. Photographers produced fabulous pictures a long time before AF was even a glimpse in anybody's eye, or auto ISO to 6400, or f:1.4, or multiple on-cam metering modes. We should all rejoice that the Canon monopoly on top-end cams has, for now, become a two-horse race with freedom for us to choose what works best for us.
The rest is just a large element of judgement/emotion getting into the picture. And that does not improve its quality
Chrono1081 wrote:
Sorry but I absolutely did not miss the mark. A lot of people blame their gear for their photography shortcomings. Just yesterday I had someone asking if they should sell their nikon d90 or whichever one it is because when they shoot pictures of the moon its blurry and too bright.
Like I said before I used to sell cameras for a living and a good 95% of the cameras that got returned "defective" were cause the user simply did not know how to shoot.
As for Canons "shortcomings" im sorry but if you deal with them from a dealers perspective they are a ton easer to deal with then any other camera company out there. If its broke, you send it back or return it to the store and get a new one. Not sure what more people want.
As for "falling on deaf ears" I have to say you are wrong. Seems to me like they are doing the right thing and repairing the issues. Mind you they cant snap their fingers and say "ok! fix is here!" It takes teams of scientists, pr people, engineers, etc to come up with a viable fix, create a workflow for that fix, get the information out to the public, then have them send in their camera to have it fixed.
Not sure why I get worked up over these stupid troll threads. (Sorry OP but this was a trollish thread before you edited it.) I'm not in retail anymore and dont deal with the constant crying over company X's products....Show more →
Read this, http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1967 and tell me it was operator error. I can show you a ton of pictures that look just like this. 2 years and still trying to fix is not fixed. They knew before it was released it had a focusing issue and still released it.
This is not a troll thread and that is an easy thing to throw around when you don't agree with someones view or question. It was the same type of question I asked myself before I switched. Simply did canon (in this case) take there eye off the ball?
"Nope, I still say the proof is in the photos. If the other guy shows you 10 photos that are better than yours this proves that the other system is as good at taking photos as your system is. If it took 1000 shots to get those 10 then that means that the camera might not make the job as easy as your camera but is still capable of excellent results."- panos.v
i'm sorry that is the absolutely lamest reasoning i have ever heard. i purchased one for it to help me be more productive and efficient. canon promoted the 1D3 as the most sophisticated accurate fastest precise camera it made. the only thing missing there was the truth.
sjms wrote:
"Nope, I still say the proof is in the photos. If the other guy shows you 10 photos that are better than yours this proves that the other system is as good at taking photos as your system is. If it took 1000 shots to get those 10 then that means that the camera might not make the job as easy as your camera but is still capable of excellent results."- panos.v
i'm sorry that is the absolutely lamest reasoning i have ever heard. i purchased one for it to help me be more productive and efficient. canon promoted the 1D3 as the most sophisticated accurate fastest precise camera it made. the only thing missing there was the truth. ...Show more →
The 1D3 situation is different as the camera was clearly sold as a fast AF tracking camera yet there is clearly a fault with the equipment.
What is lame, is saying that a XT or 5D are useless as image making machines because they cannot track well, when they were never sold as such.
sjms wrote:
"Nope, I still say the proof is in the photos. If the other guy shows you 10 photos that are better than yours this proves that the other system is as good at taking photos as your system is. If it took 1000 shots to get those 10 then that means that the camera might not make the job as easy as your camera but is still capable of excellent results."- panos.v
i'm sorry that is the absolutely lamest reasoning i have ever heard. i purchased one for it to help me be more productive and efficient. canon promoted the 1D3 as the most sophisticated accurate fastest precise camera it made. the only thing missing there was the truth. ...Show more →
Lol. +1
My cousins wedding is a perfect example. Wedding photographer was shooting a 1DsmkIII, and I was just casually snapping around with my d40 and 18-55VR. The wedding shots came back, and there were like 2 in focus. I made a book for them, in which my amateur photos turned out better than a seasoned veteran. WITH A D40!
kane513 wrote:
My cousins wedding is a perfect example. Wedding photographer was shooting a 1DsmkIII, and I was just casually snapping around with my d40 and 18-55VR. The wedding shots came back, and there were like 2 in focus. I made a book for them, in which my amateur photos turned out better than a seasoned veteran. WITH A D40!
I wouldn't blame the gear on him sucking. He could have always manually focused.
Its a variety of factors; apparent quality issues, perceived failure to take ownership and poor customer service/relations.
But foremost in my mind is their refusual to give customers what they want from a feature standpoint. Being number 1, they likely feel they can err on the conservative side and still protect their position. That has proved false by evidence of sale loss to Nikon for a certain important segment of the DSLR market. They are still formidable but this is a costly loss nonetheless.
Who said anything about AF tracking being the only thing deficient with Canon? Canon AF stinks on motionless subjects too as sometimes it hits and sometimes it doesn't (and you never know unless you zoom to 100% on the camera LCD, and who has time for that except landscape photographers). I shoot people, and crappy AF is a fact with the 5D for me, and I've owned 3 of them. I have the proof if you want to see it, but I'm guessing you'd rather just like to go on believing your right instead of admitting Canon AF does not compare to Nikon's on any camera platform. I now have a D700 and all my focus problems are gone. Oh well, just coincidence I suppose.
panos.v wrote:
The 1D3 situation is different as the camera was clearly sold as a fast AF tracking camera yet there is clearly a fault with the equipment.
What is lame, is saying that a XT or 5D are useless as image making machines because they cannot track well, when they were never sold as such.
Anyways, enough with this troll thread.
and so then they installed the identical AF system in the 1Ds3 and said there was no issue with it. and that is turning out to be a less then truthful statement too.
as to the XTi and 40D i said that they were some of the best image makers i had from canon. they were more consistant performers then any of their upper line.
sjms wrote:
canon delivers on what every tech hungry person seems to be looking for
sleek design and look
it is eye grabbing with the white lenses
tech heavy and cutting edge
what canon doesn't deliver
RELIABILITY and CONSISTANCY
this is coming from a 5 year canon user that went through a 1Ds $7000(DOA out of the box, replaced), 1D2 $4200, 1Ds2 $7400(DIED 1.5 months into ownership took 3 weeks to replace and i was a CPS member), 1D3 $4500(and the saga of issues continues)
it got to the point where went on a job to shoot and wondered what was going to happen and that my BU camera better be ready.
i did find the one canon bodys that delivered for me was the 40D/XTi. to date the most reliable canon products i owned
And really, their inability to deal with the whole mysterious Err99 on nearly every body is outrageous. If they can't identify the problem and fix it, they should be issuing refunds.
rjk55425 wrote:
And really, their inability to deal with the whole mysterious Err99 on nearly every body is outrageous. If they can't identify the problem and fix it, they should be issuing refunds.
I have had every single Canon body since D30, except for the 20D and the current X or Rebel series, all the way to the 1D Mark III and 1Ds Mark III, I never had any Err99 issues whatsoever, not even a single time.... Oh, well, this is a Nikon board and this definitely OT .
AGeoJO wrote:
I have had every single Canon body since D30, except for the 20D and the current X or Rebel series, all the way to the 1D Mark III and 1Ds Mark III, I never had any Err99 issues whatsoever, not even a single time.... Oh, well, this is a Nikon board and this definitely OT .
AGeoJO wrote:
I have had every single Canon body since D30, except for the 20D and the current X or Rebel series, all the way to the 1D Mark III and 1Ds Mark III, I never had any Err99 issues whatsoever, not even a single time.... Oh, well, this is a Nikon board and this definitely OT .
This is the Nikon forum. You need to go to the Canon forum to read the threads about err99 issues.
James R wrote:
This is the Nikon forum. You need to go to the Canon forum to read the threads about err99 issues.
You are correct, James, but the title of the thread reads "The Canon Fallout".... I noticed that the OP changed the context of his first post however. Yes, it is OT, for sure.
kane513 wrote:
My cousins wedding is a perfect example. Wedding photographer was shooting a 1DsmkIII, and I was just casually snapping around with my d40 and 18-55VR. The wedding shots came back, and there were like 2 in focus. I made a book for them, in which my amateur photos turned out better than a seasoned veteran. WITH A D40!
WOW!!! Your example mirrors my own...I was snapping shots with my 4mo. old D80 at my brothers wedding last year. They hired a recommended photographer with canon gear. My sister in law was so dissatisfied about the quality and out of focus pics of the wedding photographers work. Imagine this noobs surprise when she told me my shots were better.
I was shocked! Thats when I knew I would be with Nikon for a long time!
Apparently I have been booked for future functions!
I hope she doesn't think its pro bono!
I guess this is another one of those stupid "I'm going to highlight all brand X faults and ignore any brand Y ones" threads.
Oddly enough only a few years ago, if you believed the forums, Nikon users were migrating in droves to Canon. Only now have Nikon caught up,and now people are going both ways.
Honestly, the idea that Canon cameras cannot take in focus wedding photos is absurd. Do you really think the massive numbers of wedding photographers who use Canon would stay in business if they were not as good as amateurs using cheap Nikon gear? I think this thread needs a warning bell around its neck so we can hear it coming, and move out of its way ...
LeifG wrote:
I guess this is another one of those stupid "I'm going to highlight all brand X faults and ignore any brand Y ones" threads.
Oddly enough only a few years ago, if you believed the forums, Nikon users were migrating in droves to Canon. Only now have Nikon caught up,and now people are going both ways.
Honestly, the idea that Canon cameras cannot take in focus wedding photos is absurd. Do you really think the massive numbers of wedding photographers who use Canon would stay in business if they were not as good as amateurs using cheap Nikon gear? I think this thread needs a warning bell around its neck so we can hear it coming, and move out of its way ... ...Show more →
+1
And how did the world go round before the wonderful (and recent) Nikon cameras? Well, we don't know exactly, 'cause all the pics are more or less OOF
Obviously, Canon and Nikon have overlapping features and products. With the advent of excellent hi ISO performance Canon's super fast primes are less vital since a F2.8 Zoom shot at ISO 6400 gives the same exposure of a F1.4 at ISO 1600.
The fact that fine photographers can be comfortable with either system just means that Nikon is back and providing important competition to Canon. So wait for the Mk IV before you bemoan Canon's collapse in the IQ/feature "leapfrog" race.
.