gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Canon departure thoughts | |
johnvanr wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
johnvanr wrote:
As an aside, a while back I took my sister-in-law to a birding spot and gave her my birding kit to use (OM-1 plus 150-400mm). I was surprised how hard it was for her, even with a zoom lens, to get a flying bird in the frame. She had trouble even with the slow vultures.
Totally true.
I remember the first time I tried bird photography. I was a very experienced photographer, but had not worked with that subject before. half the time I couldn’t even get the darn bird (flying cranes and geese mostly) in the frame, and when I did I was almost completely unable to keep them in the AF zone.
Eventually, with lots of bird photography under my belt, I got to the point where I can (usually) track the critters in flight, think about where I want them in the frame, pay attention to the relative placement of multiple birds and their wing positions, and think about how the background works compositionally.
So there IS a lot more to it than just the camera.
Though even once you get develop technique the responsiveness of the camera system still matters.
- - -
Sy Sez wrote:
I started with a fully Manual Minolta SRT-102, rolled my own Kodak Ektachrome film developed it myself, printed on a Bessler 23C Enlarger, and developed Cibachrome prints with a Besler Motor-base Agitator.
I once remarked on this forum, if that was the case "today", this forum membership would be reduced by 95% 
Heh. The first camera I bought with my own money was a Minolta of that same vintage. Also learned to print at an early age.
(For the record, I’m no interested in working that way any more, even though I could — no more than I’d be interested in driving a car from that era or using that period’s airplanes for travel… ;-) )
- - -
On the general topic of relative value of various equipment options, there are some objective things we can say, and from them we can come to some individual subjective conclusions. I don’t think it is as simple as saying (in my curmudgeonly old guy voice), “these kids today don’t know what it was like to be a REAL photographer back in 1930!” or (in my tech introduction MC voice) “this will change your life, take your photography to the next level!”
Objectively, we can look at camera features and compare brands, and I think it is fair to say that Canon has, at a minimum, not made the typical, expected incremental move forward that we hope to see — they haven’t leapfrogged the other brands’ competitive models. Normally we expect that each new system will mark an advance against the competitions slightly older systems, but it is hard to make an argument that Canon has done that here.
Then we get to the subjective stuff.
Does it matter and to whom? I’ve written earlier about why it matters to me in my particular situations. (Short story: I’ve been waiting since 5DsR for some features that haven’t really arrived in a form that is compelling. I’m no longer driven to stick with a brand because I have their lenses, since I’d move to RF lenses if I moved to Canon R.)
I hear something similar from those who might be interested in the R1. If you were not already committed to one or the other brand, it would be pretty hard to make an ironclad case for the R1 when the A1 exists, at least if you are contemplating and entire system.
On the other hand, if you already have a R5 and a nice set of RF lenses, it almost certainly makes sense to stay where you are. Despite is marginal but real improvements, most photographers are not going to see their world change as a result of moving from the R5 to the R5ii. (Moving from R3 to R1? I’m afraid I’m not qualified ot say much about that.)
What if you bought into Canon mirrorless at an earlier stage, thought the R5 looked pretty good, but held off waiting to see the R5ii? While the R5ii might not be quite all that you hoped for, it is a solid camera that is even a bit better than the R5.
What if you are still happily shooting with your older DSLR system and it is doing everything you need? Hey, save your money!
YMMV.
This leapfrogging is mostly based on a few parameters, though. MFT, for example, always loses out while on other parameters Olympus has been and is miles ahead of the FF competition. They had pre-capture years ago, the best IBIS and today still have capture modes the other brands don’t have.
Over time, virtually all aspects continue to get updated and no system generally stays ahead or behind for long — each new iteration generally tends to catch up to the prior entries from the other competitors and (temporarily perhaps) exceed their capabilities in other areas.
That has long been one of my main arguments against too-frequent brand-switching in a desire to have “the very best.”
My point is about the current situation with Canon and the others where this pattern has arguably been broken and, in some ways regarded as important by many photographers, Canon is not really moving the ball forward in that way with the latest introductions.
Again, I’m not saying that everyone should give up their Canon gear and move to another platform — it still works well and for those deeply invested in things like Canon RF lenses, the costs of switching right now are likely too high to justify this.
But for those of us — and I’m not the only one in this thread— who are at one of those inflection points where we’d be investing in ore than just another body if we stick with Canon, it makes a lot of sense to look around at how the competition has been performing. When I do this this, I see some very appealing alternative options.
johnvanr wrote:
I see your points based on specs, but I wonder how much difference there is in practice between for example Canon 600/4 and Sony 600/4, which basically came out in their last iteration at the same time. Nobody has a modern 500/4 and I think nobody will ever build one again. Quite honestly, I can understand your frustration with Canon versus Nikon in lens line up, but not versus Sony.
To some photographers it would not be irrelevant that you can put those 600mm f/4 lenses on a “flagship” 50MP camera on one platform and on a 24MP camera on the other.
Indeed, that won’t matter to everyone, at least not to the extent that it warrants a brand change. But for those who are looking at whole systems it can be significant.
Methodical wrote I know you are familiar with Toyota vehicles. Toyota keeps things simple and don't try to incorporate all the fancy electronic gimmicks in their vehicles because of all the potential problems. They use what works and works well for many years. Their vehicles may not be seen as industry leading but they are one of the highest quality vehicles on the road that hold their value better many of the industry leading vehicles. They are effective, trouble free simple vehicles that last probably 10x longer than those fancy industry leading vehicles. That's Canon when it comes to lenses. They may not be industry leading but they are excellent quality lenses that work, sharp, last long and maintains value. KISS...
I’m not sure that your analogy works quite as perfectly as you think though. For example, Toyota was the lead innovator when it came to hybrid vehicles and later plug-in hybrids. They were also so far ahead of the pack on hydrogen vehicles that they nvested a bunch of money in them before they (seem to have) faded.
johnvanr wrote:
Nikon obviously had to make desperate attempts to not go under and they have performed wonderfully under that pressure..
Ain’t that the truth! Lots of people (including me) thuught that Nikon was about to go out of business, radically change their business, or get bought out. I’m surprised and pleased to see them doing well.
|
