Is it just me or is canon losing the plot a bit.

Monkey

Monkey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,254
Name
Craig Denton
Edit My Images
Yes
Before anyone starts, this is not supposed to arouse a major argument, and yes i may be biased because i shoot nikon, im just curious to know if other people are thinking the same, or if im in a world of my own.

They have released 2 new models recently the 5DMKII, and the 50D.

Everywhere i read it appears that they have not addressed the bits that matter like faster focusing or more focusing points, or better fps etc etc.

From my point of view they have basically just thrown massive amounts of pixels in the sensor to try and make them look amazing.

Honestly and truthfully if you hadnt already commited to a lens mount would you buy the canon route.
 
I think the FPS and fast focussing are covered on other bodies, is the 5D designed more for studio / landscapes where the FPS is not an issue, don't know anything about the 50d but if it is an improvement over the 40d it will be a blinding camera.
 
Frankly I think the Canon 5D II looks amazing, and makes the Nikon D700 look poor value (as does the Sony A900).

I do shoot Nikon, and the fact that I sold my D700 recently, and am seriously considering Canon / Sony for the first time, is quite telling.

I don't need FPS or fast autofocus to get a shot, so IQ is more important. I think the 5D MKII delivers on IQ (the 50D appears to miss on this one, looks a noisy little b****r).
 
now i agree the 40D is a blinding camera, as is the Nikon D200

What is puzzling me is if you look at the list of things nikon did to the D200 to make the D300, it was rather alot, and a bit in every area.

From what ive read so far, none of the Focusing has been upgraded on the 50D
 
Monkey said:
Honestly and truthfully if you hadnt already commited to a lens mount would you buy the canon route.
Click to expand...

Right now, probably not. In fact before I went for the 1D MkIII I seriously considered changing the lot and going for the D3.

A year ago though the situation was reversed. People were moving from Nikon to Canon for features and noise handling. These things tend to go in cycles and I suspect Canon will be developing something right now to shift the balance.
 
puddleduck said:
Frankly I think the Canon 5D II looks amazing, and makes the Nikon D700 look poor value (as does the Sony A900).

I do shoot Nikon, and the fact that I sold my D700 recently
Click to expand...

id be interested if you expanded on that, the 5D is quite a bit more expensive.

What made you sell the D700
 
Monkey said:
What is puzzling me is if you look at the list of things nikon did to the D200 to make the D300, it was rather alot, and a bit in every area.
Click to expand...

Worse IQ at base ISO than the D200 or D2X being one of them.

They did a lot there, probably unintentionally :D
 
If it wasn't for the fact I have too much invested in glass and there being no replacement in the Nikon line up for the MP-E65 I would buy a D700 tommorow morning, 5Dmk2 is a bit of a let down for me, I can only hope that Canon address the issues with the next model.
 
To be honest, I don't really worry what any of the manufacturers are doing. There will always be models that don't make sense to some people and there will always be bigger, better and cheaper models in the future that out shine current ones. So switching brands and/or not buying in to a system because of the occassional 'miss-direction' puzzles me...just wait 6 months or so and the next latest and greatest will be out.
 
Monkey said:
id be interested if you expanded on that, the 5D is quite a bit more expensive.

What made you sell the D700
Click to expand...

The 5D II is more expensive in the UK, market but actually in most of the world you are looking at about $3000 for both, give or take a bit.

Sold the D700 as I shoot low ISO, and its not doing any better than its 10 or 12 megapixels DX camera for accuity (imagine fir trees on a mountain top), actually with the low pixel density on FF on the D700 they look low rez. The Canon 5D is quite a bit sharper (looking at RAW, all sharpening off, due to its light AA filter)

A few controlled shots with a 10 megapixel DX vs 12 megapixels FF in a landscape scenario, had me looking at other options. Its not a bad camera at all (in fact excellent), but I live at base ISO and would rather have a decent ISO100 mode for outdoor work.

So I'm hoping the 5D MKII will retain the light handed AA filter, and deliver more true rez (and a weaker AA filter will help, if the 5D II is like the MK1) for enlargements.
 
Interesting. I almost went for the D3, but the shop didn't have the lens I wanted. I needed something quick, so stuck with canon.

As for the original point of the thread. Canon and Nikon both have their good and bad points. The 1d's are the pro cameras, sports and press togs need the faster frame rate, but not the huge file size. As Mentioned, a studio tog is likely to need larger files, as the studio is a more controlled environment, fast focusing isn't really needed in a 5D.

The Nikon D3 is kinda mid way between the two, files are small enough for press and sports togs, and large enough to upsize for studio work. The Nikon is a good all-rounder. Canon clearly have decided to cater for one or the other.
 
Agree with the last post.

I think Canon have a different philosophy to Nikon with regard to designing cameras and targeting particular markets, which may or may not appeal to you.

I bought a 5D back in April (and defected from Nikon in doing so :'( ) largely on the strength an article by a professional landscape photographer that I saw in a Guardian photo supplement. I'd used film up to this point, and this was my first digital camera.

At the time, the 5D was reputed to have the finest image quality of any digital SLR (perhaps with the exception of the 1Ds mk III), and for just over £1K, it seemed like a no-brainer for someone like myself who shoots mainly landscapes and portraits. The autofocus, whilst not the best on a DSLR, is still miles better than my 10 year old Nikon film bodies.

If you want ultimate IQ, super-fast focusing and FPS, you need to be buying into the 1D or 1Ds, if you're a Canon person. Moving down the range obviously means you're going to sacrifice features. Canon have evidently decided that the 5D mk I/II are about superior IQ first and foremost. You can't really complain that they don't do everything as well as the 1D/1Ds.

I get the impression that the D700 is pitched to be more of an all-round performer - evidenced, for example, by its built-in flash. Canon haven't included this on the 5D, probably because they assume (correctly?) that its target market is interested primarily in IQ and would want to use an external unit if they needed flash.

As always, look what's on the market and choose what has the features you need.

A.
 
I dont really think either of them are great upgrades, for the money, id rather pay the extra for a 1D.
What really gets my goat up, is (canon and nikon) the big emphasis on using them as a camcorder. Whats that all about???? theyre flippin cameras for taking pictures. Use the extra investment to improve on autofocus, metering etc.
Dean
 
Dino f said:
I dont really think either of them are great upgrades, for the money, id rather pay the extra for a 1D.
What really gets my goat up, is (canon and nikon) the big emphasis on using them as a camcorder. Whats that all about???? theyre flippin cameras for taking pictures. Use the extra investment to improve on autofocus, metering etc.
Dean
Click to expand...

dont get me started on that, i was banging my head against the wall in the nikon d90 thread regarding that.
 
Dino f said:
Whats that all about???? theyre flippin cameras for taking pictures. Use the extra investment to improve on autofocus, metering etc.
Dean
Click to expand...

I suspect because the feature is effectively software only. Its a one time cost to write the software, it doesnt add to the per unit cost so effectively its a feature for free.

What I find more annoying is that canon effectively limit software to try to differentiate model lines (for example compare the number of options in a 1 series to the 40/50D). In other words they are quite happy to add a new software feature only when that feature is of no interest to a professional.
 
Monkey said:
dont get me started on that, i was banging my head against the wall in the nikon d90 thread regarding that.
Click to expand...

Its just another mode for the great unwashed like Liveview etc.

Its basically "chavving" up the DSLR imho.

Personally all I need is a shutter button, A mode and M mode and I'm good to go.

It'll only be a matter of time before they all have built MP3 players for "bangin' tunez" on the go.

Seriously, I imagine that the growth in You Tube has got a fair amount to do with the addition of video right now?
 
And they've probably already written the algorithms for the compacts which do record video and just require tweaking for a dslr. Maybe their surveys and market research suggests a lot of potential owners (current compact owners) would miss the video feature on their compact.

I suspect quite a lot of the code between a 1D and a 50D for example shares quite a lot of similarities, but with some features disabled and a few things slowed down to make the cheaper cameras less good than their more expensive cousins.
 
I'm really not convinced that there won't be some real applications for video. There are a whole range of lenses available on 35mm, as well as the DoF benefits of a large sensor, that mean we could see some clever stuff. Remember Tim Burton used EOS 1D Mk IIs for the Corpe Bride (albeit a frame at a time) so we are seeing convergence.

As others have said, once you have liveview, then recording that stream is a simple step.

It's funny how no-one seems to question the usefulness of ISO12800 but they do slam video. For a lot of people, most I would reckon, very high ISO speeds are only pub bragging rights like very high pixel count. I would love slightly better noise performance that I get at ISO1600 but can't see going much beyond that as I can't see that well myself when it gets dark!

I don't get all this whinging about 5D AF. I had a Mk I for a while and it was very good (certainly better then the xxD range for moving targets). Not quite a 1-series but pretty damn good.

All this comparison with a D700/D3 - for me the nearest rival in the Canon range to these cameras is the 1D III. Yes, it isn't full frame but that probably doesn't matter for a lot of the current target market.

Fundamentally Canon and Nikon have approached the market in different ways.

D3 is effectively a slightly higher resolution 1D with better noise performance and D700 is a cost reduced version. If you want 6 fps or whatever, 12 MP and full frame, D700 is the answer.

5DII is much higher resolution and a slower camera. For Canon, if you want high speed, get the 1DIII. Nikon don't have a 5DII equivalent, so if you want a very high resolution DSLR from Nikon you can't. Then we get people saying you don't need 21MP and it's pointless. I don't know, I haven't tried. However, I do have 16.7 MP in my 1DSII and I find it very useful and wouldn't want to drop down from there as I do find it useful.

Paul
 
Monkey said:
dont get me started on that, i was banging my head against the wall in the nikon d90 thread regarding that.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it won't be long before dslrs came with wifi internet access built in. Personally I feel the video feature being introduced on dslrs is just a gimmick. I can understand whey it may appeal to the type of buyer who is after an entry level or even prosumer camera, but I really can't see where it fits in with something like a 5d MKII.

The arguement that wedding or sports togs will find it a bonus doesn't hold water for me, especially when a tiny camcorder with much higher resolution video output can be bought for pennies.

Video and indeed the race to cram ever-more pixels onto a tiny sensor are just tools in an ever more desperate drive for market share. The unfortunate thing is that the budget for these new gizmos has to come from somewhere, so if prices are to be maintained, or even reduced, with each new model then build quality will most likely be the area that ends up suffering.
 
I'm not sold on video, or live view either. I like the interaction with the eyepiece - I get most uncomfortable using the LCD screen to compose on other people's digicams.

Having said that, a tilting or detachable live-view LCD would make some shots possible [for example, the arms-up crowd shot, or very low groundwork where kneeling/lying down isn't an option [mental note to self; mustn't wear my suit next time I go wildlife spotting..]

I'm envious of the D700 and D3 for two main reasons; firstly, because I love available light photography, and the ability to shoot ISO 3200-6400 without fear of noise appeals more than base ISO quality for me. Secondly, because I have Nikkor lenses; no more, no less. If I had Canon glass, I'd be envious of the 1DIII and 5DII, as I'm sure not one of these cameras is anything less than superb.

And frankly, both camps should be wary of the Sony A900; as a company, they're going from 'Betamax also-rans' to a real force to be reckoned with.. If I were starting over from scratch, then I'd give Sony serious consideration.
 
danbroad said:
And frankly, both camps should be wary of the Sony A900; as a company, they're going from 'Betamax also-rans' to a real force to be reckoned with.. If I were starting over from scratch, then I'd give Sony serious consideration.
Click to expand...

Sony have stated they intend to be the number 2 in the UK market in the near future, on paper the A900 certainly looks impressive, although ergonomics or even styling don't seem to be terribly high on their list of priorities, their cameras still look like old Konicas :runaway:
 
I was about to buy a 5d but then I heard of the impending Mk II so I held off expecting an improved AF and slightly better FPS. For me, FPS does help in group shots when one person blinks and another sneezes etc! I must admit I was underwealmed by the MkII and am wondering whether to switch or not. One thing I have read in a few places is that the Nikon produces sharper images...Although I have no practical experiance of that, I'll probably get the 5D when the prices start to drop.
 
For me lower noise would be very useful.

21MP is only 30% more pixels (in each direction) than 12MP. And still behind 35mm film (just).
 
I certainly don't buy the film is higher res that digital. With 16MP I have better pics that I've managed to get from 4000dpi scans of slide film.

I think one of the major problems is that Canon users expected the 5D to be a D700 with a Canon badge on the front. Canon thought different.

As I said, I was always impressed with the AF on the old 5D so am amazed when people who have never used one tell me it is bad!
 
Both Canon and Nikon make excellent cameras, each with their strong and weak points. It's the pictures you take with them that count. It's so easy to get drawn into the "I must upgrade" mindset just because there is something new on the market.
 
Absolutely. I've sold and bought many lenses over the last years - all great, and most I've regretted at some point... gear acquisition syndrome is a very bad thing...

Of course, if a new model happens to provide you with something that until now didn't exist [for example, the high ISO capability of the FX sensor], and that's something you've desperately wanted, well, then I guess it's OK to wanderlust...

I've decided though that until my camera has 50k shutter clicks [I'm about halfway] then I won't even consider an upgrade!
 
danbroad said:
I'm not sold on video, or live view either. I like the interaction with the eyepiece - I get most uncomfortable using the LCD screen to compose on other people's digicams.

Having said that, a tilting or detachable live-view LCD would make some shots possible [for example, the arms-up crowd shot, or very low groundwork where kneeling/lying down isn't an option [mental note to self; mustn't wear my suit next time I go wildlife spotting..]
Click to expand...

:lol:

I must admit, i frowned apon live view, however i shoot ALOT of live music, and you are correct, for the "arms up" shots, it really does make life that little more easier for me.

As for video, i can understand putting it in the Canon xxxd range, but in a 5d mkII? This is surely aimed at an end of the Market where upgrading from a P&S would not meaning getting a 2k camera? i might be wrong, there might be alot of kids out there wanting a 5d MKII, but the money invested in making this happen surely could have been better spent fine tuning noise at higher ISO settings

I think im just echoing other peoples views here :)
 
puddleduck said:
Its just another mode for the great unwashed like Liveview etc.

Its basically "chavving" up the DSLR imho.

Personally all I need is a shutter button, A mode and M mode and I'm good to go.
Click to expand...

They'll hardly shift the camera if it only has those features !

Chavving it up suggest to me that it has some really badly incoporated features into it, like a home made bdy kit onto a car stuck on with some superglue. This isn't it, this isn't 320x240 res on a compact, this is full HD with the ability to use every EOS mount glass in the market.
 
puddleduck said:
(the 50D appears to miss on this one, looks a noisy little b****r).
Click to expand...

Is this a general opinion and noisy in relation to what, I was planning on getting this at the end of next month for its noise control amongst other things. Is it improved over the 40D which would be my other camera of choice?
 
anyone?
 
I wouldn't take it too seriously until we've seen some real world results, and quite a few people here have the 50D now, so we should start getting plenty of pics to judge from.

I have a 40D which is excellent noise wise, and I plan to get a 50D pretty soon. I really can't see Canon introducing 15 million pixels into a crop sensor unless they're confident on the noise issue. ;)
 
puddleduck said:
I don't need FPS or fast autofocus to get a shot, so IQ is more important. I think the 5D MKII delivers on IQ (the 50D appears to miss on this one, looks a noisy little b****r).
Click to expand...

It remains to be seen with the lack of raw files coming out yet. What I have seen looks worryingly smeary NR a la Nikon at higher ISOs with JPG but it's all up in the air. Personally I think a 16MP sensor with the AF, shutter lag and mirror black-out dealt with would have made more sense. Still looks to be around £300-400 more than the D700 and I think that parity could well stay.

I have to say though, for what you shoot, a 21MP body makes a lot of sense. and it'll be interesting to see what you think of it.

The 50D is no way 1.5-2 stops better than the 40D as Canon are claiming unless you whack the NR to high and live with watercolour NR. The 15MP sensor still strikes me as unnecessary. Quite a few people have them now and it's all a bit underwhelming. Worrying levels of err99's being reported as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top