charlyw wrote: kurt765 wrote:
The attached screen grab from the DPR shows clear as day that the 6D2 does not include a modern sensor like the 5DIV. It's about the same as a 5D3.
False, it shows that Canon chose a sensor that can be manufactured to the price point of the camera and still leave some leeway for future price reductions...
Other camera manufacturers seem to have no problem producing better sensors in cameras at lower price points, like the D750. I should give Canon a handicap because with all their success they are inept at producing better sensors at a lower price point? Nope.
kurt765 wrote:
has all the resources they need to make better sensors and they chosen to NOT use that tech in a new product.
And I am willing to bet a considerable amount of money that they did so because of the projected price point of the camera which leaves x$ for the sensor itself - and if that new sensor technology for a full frame sensor still is costing them y$ and y>x then they will chose a technology which gives them the projected price.
I care literally not at all for whatever the internal business forces are at work within the company. They produced an inferior product, and if that's what you want then go buy one but I sure won't.
kurt765 wrote:
"See, Canon is the best!"
You can't keep afloat as a company if that means that you spend more money on the item sold than it brings in - all factors included, such as exchange rate risks, supply chain, yadda. Only if they were to limit the run so that they can claim that fame and still be certain not to lose too much money in the end they could do such a stunt....
*gasp* maybe they could invest some of their success into making their products better, because other makers are. Is Canon in danger of not staying afloat? I thought they were #1?
kurt765 wrote:
Canon has lagged behind the competition for years in DR and so many Canon users have stuck their head in the sand and shrugged off technological gains enjoyed by users of other platforms.
I haven't seen a single photo which was only possible because of the other companies technological advantage - not a single fricking one - all I got to see were inept users using a technology to mask their lack of ability to compose a picture... The worst are those that use that technology to get rid of flash setups to the detriment of the results (i have seen truly horrible results that should never ever have reached the customers)...
This is a stupid argument. You are arguing that advances in technology are pointless, because you can still take good photos with old technology. While you can still take good photos, why not capture the most information possible when you click the shutter? Why throw away what you could be capturing? I like capturing more highlight detail and not having awful noise in the shadows. You don't have to push the exposure a ton to notice the difference in the raw files in my experience.
kurt765 wrote:
I am a landscape shooter who used to shoot Canon. Now I have almost entirely switched to Sony, with the only real use of my 5D3 being when I want to have fast autofocus on my 100-400 (which is when I'm not shooting landscapes), which is one of only 3 Canon lenses I have left. And recently I've been eyeing getting rid of the rest of it. I love the extra DR the Sony sensors provide, which I now shoot on with almost entirely native Sony glass. The 5D4 showed that maybe Canon was finally advancing forward and to follow it up with this 6D2 sensor is disappointing. I had thought about replacing my 5D3 with a 6D2 until I saw the comically small AF point spread and now the final nail in the coffin is the old tech sensor.
What is the difference in landscape photography? What can you do that you couldn't do with a Canon - because landscape photography lives and dies with the light - literally, if you have bad light then you have bad light, you may be able to polish a turd but you will come off smelling like sh*t doing so...
Photos where previously I had to combine brackets to preserve dynamic range I can now capture with ONE exposure. I like that quite a lot. It saves a ton of time. I like both the increase in DR and the increase in resolution. Garbage in, gargbage out. If your sensor captures garbage there's not much you can do about it after the fact. I don't like to have piles of garbage lurking in the shadows or early clipping in the highlights. To each his own I guess.
Jul 20, 2017 at 10:56 AM
Previous versions of kurt765's message #14113319 « Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II »
