# Disappointed with Canon?



## Ubi (Nov 11, 2010)

Hi, I'm a long time follower of this site and I want to use it to express my disappointment to Canon about their current range of DSLRs.

I've been using exclusively Canon digital SLRs for the past ten years and have a collection of L glass to use with my 5D. Recently I've been given some Nikon kit to play with by my college and I believe the D700 and D3s blow away anything that Canon has in the market place. Add to that Canon's absence from the mirrorless and pellicle markets and I wonder what's going on, or not, at big red. Getting rid of a mirror on a trapeze flapping about is a significant and logical development but Canon seems stuck in the past.

I'm not alone in my group in saying that if we don't hear of developments from Canon in new markets soon we're going to move to a combination of Nikon and Panasonic and hang the expense. If we're forced to do that it will take massive technological innovation to persuade us to sell up again and come back to Canon.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 11, 2010)

oh please not another nikon user who pretend to be a canon user.  



> believe the D700 and D3s blow away anything that Canon has in the market place



yeah sure.. ;D then sell your L glas and switch to nikon.

honest when you are unable to produce great images with a 5D or 5D MK2 then you should think about switching your hobby/job not camera brands. 

for me image quality is top priority. 
nikon has nothing better then the 5D MK2 when it comes to image quality. 



> Getting rid of a mirror on a trapeze flapping about is a significant and logical development but Canon seems stuck in the past



for hobbyist maybe.... as a professionell photographer i wait until the electronic viewfinder is at least as good as the optical..... and that will need another few years.

canon is sure working on it.
but as long as it is not up to their standards you will not see such things.

honest... i donÂ´t see people who make money with photography talking about such nonsense. only hobbists with to much time at their hands. go out and shot pictures.


----------



## kubelik (Nov 11, 2010)

ubi ... you do understand nikon isn't using pellicle mirrors either? that's purely a sony thing right now. you're complaining in two opposite directions at the same time.

I haven't seen any EVF that makes me want to stop using the 5DII's huge pentaprism.

I agree that the AF on the D700 is vastly superior to the 5DII's, but beyond that, there's little else to seriously differentiate the two in terms of real shooting ... and to me, having the ability to record HD video on the 5DII totally outweighs the AF concessions (I grant that's a very personal decision and your mileage may vary)


----------



## leGreve (Nov 11, 2010)

I gotta stick with Gothmoth... with the posibility of being ridiculed, I worked professionally full time with commercial photography and when we're not shooting Hasselblad or Sinar with Phase One backs, we are using Canons. A las we have not yet upgraded the 1ds mkii but my private 5d ii is just dandy. Fine image quality and so on and I even managed to pull off 3 serious music videos with it (hat off to the editor hehe) 

I can see what people mean about the AF in the 5d ii, but frankly I couldn't care less. I'd rather stick to manual focus for those in between model jobs.

There's nothing more to this that Canon being thorough and once they whip out the next generation Nikon fanbois will be quiet for a while. One side is always ahead for a brief periode, nothing new in that.

And stating that you are directly disappointed with Canon bewilders me... and I gotta give Gothmoth right, you do sound a bit like a hobbyist, but I'd look past that since its probably you guys who are the bread and butter of Canon, I just don't agree with you... at all.


----------



## realmike15 (Nov 11, 2010)

Hah. OP is trying to create a buzz around his opinion.

Truth is, I've tried to be a Nikon shooter on more than one occasion... but honestly I find their Controls poorly designed and laid out, their Viewfinders dull and dark, their image quality to be below Canon's, and their overall design to be clunky and odd. I have no problem if you like Nikon, my dad is a Nikon shooter. But in my (and many) people's minds, the slight benefits of Nikons AF Performance or slightly less ISO noise are not enough to out weight the fact that Canon trumps them two-folder in almost every other area.

Please don't make vague posts about how you think Canon is making less innovative cameras than Nikon and just switch if you feel that way. I can assure you though, your opinion is a that of a very small minority.


----------



## nk414 (Nov 11, 2010)

Ubi said:


> ...Add to that Canon's absence from the mirrorless and pellicle markets and I wonder what's going on, or not, at big red.



Any smart company will not announce any new technology that might hurt their sales.


----------



## gio91ber (Nov 13, 2010)

well I admit I have only used cheap cameras (I own a Canon 1000D) but I also have to admit that I don't really like current eos lineup. Their bodies are poorly designed (both in terms of aestethics and in ergonomics) and I think that the first eos cameras released (eos 650, which I own too) were much better designed (also testing high-level current eos cameras in shops).
I've also tried shooting with nikon and, although i hate their commands and buttons (totally unusable if you're shootin'), I found them much more ergonomic and less plasticky, also they're much more snappy. I'm sad to admit this as I'm engaged in a sort of war against a nikon fanboy who lent me his d90 in order to "convert me" (i've not tried the d90 only but also a d40 a d60 and a d300).
Also in terms of image quality I found nikon's much better as it tends to remove the noise leaving a sort of "film grain" which is better but this is only an opinion.
what do you think about nikon cameras, in general (leaving at home your canon fanboys attitude)?


----------



## JRSJ (Nov 13, 2010)

My girlfriend is a Nikon shooter. I get to play around with her D300s, and her 60mm Macro. What I've found is:

Nikon CLS is awesome.
iTTL produces more neutral exposures w/ flash.
Ergonomics are more intuitive.
Analog controls for basic camera functions are easier to adjust. (Verus diving into submenus via LCD.)
The high ISO grain is more film like. (on FullFrame Nikons, 1.5 crop is pretty noisy after 400 iso)
Nikon pro lens construction is pretty sweet.
Love the shutter/mirror slap. Less snappy and more "crunchy".
Rubber grips are more grippy.

If I was looking to get into photography right now -- and I did my research -- I would go for a Nikon system. That could change in a few months. Both companies like to leapfrog each other, but it seems Nikon is doing extra hurdles.

Not to say Canon hasn't been amazing -- its just that Nikon has had more time to consolidate their camera line up. Canon is in a transitionary phase, and are faced with pressure on multiple fronts. 

If I were to write Canon, I would say:

1) If EVIL cameras do become the new consumer market, I propose moving the Rebel line to it. The Rebel brand carries enormous weight, and could be enough to sway consumers from buying other brands EVIL cameras.
2) Allow the xxD line to become Consumer DSLR line (Similar to the D90/D7000)
3) Let the XD line grow, eventually the 1Ds will have so many MP that they could mask off the sensor to 1.3 crop (thus consolidating the 1D / 1Ds line into one.)
4) Develop HD video to 4K video. Its would be a major selling feature, and not to be overlooked.
5) Standardize AF/Metering systems in the xD line. It would be nice for professionals to have consistent operation of their gear.


I'm sure there is more...

JRSJ


----------



## gio91ber (Nov 13, 2010)

totally agree with jrsj... if canon won't make cheap models a bit more consistent I'll probably move to nikon (the only disappointing thing about nikon is the price of their lenses: always expensive)


----------



## ariffoto (Nov 13, 2010)

Between doing my photography and selling cameras i think people give canon a bad rap. Both brands, nikon and canon, are great camera companies. They both have their strong points. However saying that i love canon. I was thinking of switching to nikon but when i started to play with the nikons i found canon easier to work with. 
People complain about the noise but lets take a look at lets say the canon 7D vs nikon d300s. The compaint is about the noise but lets look at whats really amaizing with the 7d. it has 18mp vs 12mp. canon manages to bring down the noise to comparable levels. Personally i think thats an amaizing feet. Another thing people tend to complain about is the lack of autofocusing points. Well i don't know about you but i find they can cause problems with accuracy when you have too many. I preffer using one point even when shooting widlife or action. I have even heard by nikon users that they don't use all the points on the d300s. To top it off we can tweak our cameras to make them work to the way we want them to.
As for the mirroless cameras why complain, nikon doesn't have one so why care if canon doesn't have one. 
At the end of the day its what you feel comfortable with and what your eye prefers.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 13, 2010)

ariffoto said:


> Between doing my photography and selling cameras i think people give canon a bad rap. Both brands, nikon and canon, are great camera companies. They both have their strong points. However saying that i love canon. I was thinking of switching to nikon but when i started to play with the nikons i found canon easier to work with.
> People complain about the noise but lets take a look at lets say the canon 7D vs nikon d300s. The compaint is about the noise but lets look at whats really amaizing with the 7d. it has 18mp vs 12mp. canon manages to bring down the noise to comparable levels. Personally i think thats an amaizing feet. Another thing people tend to complain about is the lack of autofocusing points. Well i don't know about you but i find they can cause problems with accuracy when you have too many. I preffer using one point even when shooting widlife or action. I have even heard by nikon users that they don't use all the points on the d300s. To top it off we can tweak our cameras to make them work to the way we want them to.
> As for the mirroless cameras why complain, nikon doesn't have one so why care if canon doesn't have one.
> At the end of the day its what you feel comfortable with and what your eye prefers.


Well said. Camera is a personal choice. It is always a take or ive. We can always sinle out one aprticular feature and says "A" is better than "B". But when we look at 'A" and "B" as a complete package (including price), It is a tough call to say which is better than which.
As for mirrorless, Even the excutives in Canon admitted that the technology is not here yet. So why should Canon make a inferior product just to claim a "ME Too".


----------



## justicend (Nov 14, 2010)

why one with get disappointed by whole company, if he/she is using certain model. It's matter of complaining about particular product. If you are not satisfied with the product then why you bought it without doing some research. I got my first DSLR canon 60D. Whatever review says on the internet, I decided to go with 60D because 550D was little small and has no LCD on the top. And talking about 7D,it's expensive. So 60D is the choice for me. Sometimes picture I take is better than sample picture on the internet. I use kit lens and 50mm 1.8 It's perfect for me for taking family pictures and shooting around. Nikon is like alien to me, I never used one. 
The tool I am familiar with is what I love. 

I bet only pro and serious photographer use 1Ds and 5D, but who shouts on the internet forums only talks about the tool which they never use. It's different when you hear from others and use yourself, It really makes difference.


----------



## JagCanonist (Nov 14, 2010)

I'm a owner of a Eos 5D Mkll .
And i have been happy with my Camera IF:

It have been a bit faster(6fps or more).
Have been better quality on the house
(My back to Canon with bad grip,hard to get it right,but now okay,not perfect)
If AF have been better in low light,and abit more safe.(Always hard to thrust)
If Flash have work as on 550D,60D & 7D
If JPEG's have been good as Nikon's (Now i need RAW and much time ,sadly)
If "Auto Lighting Optimizer"have work.
If movie also have 50fps and 60fps .

I had some Canon Eos lenses from before,thats the main reason to why i buy this camera and not Nikon's D700 ("Only"12Mpix) or Sony A900 (Much noise from Iso 400 AND ugly as hell,Sorry!).
This was late 2008,and now 5 lenses later i still wonder if it will be anoying to use 2 diffrent system?
I'm still a fan of Canon,but how long?
If my next Camera still will be a Canon? ,.....thats not sure,but i will never order a Canon camera again before several test have been done,and most important,i have feel it in my hands.
I dont thrust the quality of Canon products ,after my sad 5D Mark II.
But i will probebly not change my camera until 2012-13 ,and than maybe Canon is back on the top??
(Now it's hard to belive that Canon ever will be the "Dream" again,but how knows) 


Sorry for my bad English.
/JK


----------



## Macadameane (Nov 14, 2010)

JagCanonist said:


> It have been a bit faster(6fps or more).
> Have been better quality on the house
> (My back to Canon with bad grip,hard to get it right,but now okay,not perfect)
> If AF have been better in low light,and abit more safe.(Always hard to thrust)
> ...



Its a little noisier (not much), but it sounds like you should just sell your 5D mk ii and get a 7D. Seems like you would be happier with it.


----------



## richy (Nov 16, 2010)

erm canon made pellicle cameras years ago, long before sony!

There are several big players in the market, theyre all doing things their own way. This way we get a choice. If you don't like canon go buy nikon or sony or olympus. All make great products with a different approach. For me canon pays my bills along with mamiya. YMMV but plenty of people are happy with canon and their cameras. The d700 is a great camera, very responsive, but around half the MP of a 5d2. You pays your money and makes your choice. As a wedding tog you can (for about the same price) take 2x d700 or a 5d2 & 7d. I don't think there is one clear choice there, but both make very compelling options. 

Mirrorless is fine for carrying around for a giggle but it isn't for pro work yet. Fuji have made an interesting sensor with phase detect built in which has to be the way forward for mirrorless. Pellicles, well lets see how that pans out, the sony's look interesting and might be worth a try but canon wouldn't be where they are if they made junk. They just chose to take a different route. Just because a camera isn't right for you doesn't make it bad, just means it was meant for someone else.


----------



## DoesNotFollow (Nov 16, 2010)

I can't help if you feel like switching to Nikon, but I'd be more than happy to help you with all of your L glass that you won't be needing anymore.


----------



## RuneL (Nov 24, 2010)

As Richy says, Canon made pellicle cameras over 40 years ago. Tried again in the 90'es, but somehow they failed. There are numerous reasons why, and those who don't know their history are bound to repeat it etc. It's a sales gimmick for now, IMO.

Canon, no, I'm not dissapointed. I was very disappointed in the 1D MK III, it gave me little or no reason to upgrade, so i stuck with the 1D II. The IV is a different story, lives up to my every expactation
I'm not much for companies putting more and more mindless gadgets into their cameras, I need it to work and to take pictures in a reliable manner. 
Who has the edge over the other varies (canon/Nikon), but I'm not selling all my stuff because of some sort of weird disappointment in what exactley? Bad image quality in the 5DII? Compared to the D700? Really? I think not. 
I love the D700, I'm blown away by it, and would, was I getting a full frame that isn't a 1Ds, get that over the 5D because of it's speed and AF- the 5DII is awful and slow in more than one way. 

I use my camera at ISO's that were, to me, a few years ago unimaginable. Shooting usable indoor corporate stuff at ISO 3000 and above is just amazing 

But I agrree on the noise, the luma of the Nijon looks nicer than Canons chroma.


----------



## zsolex (Dec 11, 2010)

Hi,

could someone give positive and negative feelings with the following cameras?
Canon 7D(EF-S 15-85 IS USM) - Nikon D300s(AF-S 16-85mm G ED VR)
The Canon has more noise in low ISO rates but in higher ISO rates is better than the d300s.
The Canon USM lens are faster than the Nikon AF-S series.
The D300s colors are closer to the reality, the Canon is a little bit reddish.
Which AF system is better? I mean speed and accurency, low light performence? The Canon AF sensor sensitivity in the center are from F2.8 and the others F5.6. In the nikon system are all from F2.8?
OK, the Nikon has more AF points.. and the Nikon can make 3D tracking. Canon?
As I heard if you use auto AF you can also use the manual focus ring. Is it true? In the Nikon system is it possible to manualy corrigate the AF in auto mode or it kills the AF motor?
The Nikon TTL produces more neutral exposures w/ flash?

thnx,

Zs


----------



## S P (Dec 11, 2010)

I think I must be like the only person that's switched FROM Nikon TO Canon this year, and even more crazy that I've been completely happy with the switch! lol  Nikon and I just weren't getting along. I'm much much happier with the Canon system and have no regrets whatsoever, even in light of all of the great new kit that Nikon has come out with this year. If anything, it's only reinforced my decision.

I got a 5D2 and have the 17-40L, 24-105L, a 70-200/4L non-IS, and a few other tidbits. I like the controls a lot better since I can get to everything with one hand, Nikon still doesn't have a lightweight and low-cost 70-200mm lens with an f/4 aperture. They force you to decide between too slow f/5.6 lenses and too big and heavy f/2.8 monsters and I just couldn't live with that. I sold my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens and picked up the Canon 70-200mm f/4L non-IS (I never used VR/IS on that lens anyways), like the Canon f/4 a whole lot better, and the difference in price paid for half of the 5D2 body!

I can't go anywhere on the Internet without hearing about how horrible and lousy Canon's AF system is, *especially* in the 5D2, and yet I've had absolutely no issues keeping things in focus even with fast moving subjects in less than favorable lighting conditions. My only complaint is that the AF does quit a bit before the Nikons in low light, but I've only run into that situation once in 6 months.

The high-res is great when I need it. 21MP resolves things that 12MP just won't, and Nikon forces you all the way up to a $7500 D3x to get that resolution at this point. The extra res also means I can just get by with only a 200mm lens and crop a little when needed. Nikon's JPEG processing probably is a little bit better and their cameras don't seem to have the low ISO noise issues that I occasionally get on Canons, but there's workarounds for that or just shoot RAW. Canon's included software also works a LOT better than Nikon's does, and it's free. Can't beat that.

Anyways, completely happy with Canon and glad I made the switch.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Dec 11, 2010)

Don't get hung up on the details - go to the best camera shop in your town in the week, look for someone that looks knowledgable, then pester them to play with both for a while... I suspect you will fall into one or the other within a few minutes...

I say go in the week, because the shop will be less busy with weekend camera gift buyers... Do you have a DSLR now ? Are you tied into a brand yet because of your existing lenses, flash etc ?


----------



## adventurer (Dec 12, 2010)

I switched from Nikon to Canon 2 years ago. The main reason for doing it was the lack of a lens in the Nikon range that was lightweight and had a long enough reach for wildlife photography (please no one mention the horrible 80-400 VR). I got a 50D and a 70-200 F4 IS + 1.4TC. Compared to my older Nikon D200 + 70-300 VR setup I do see some improvements on sharpness, not surprisingly based on the lens improvement, but I was shocked by the Canon's failure to AF in low light. I've now got a 1D Mark IV, and guess what? It's even worse. Seems like Canon is going backwards on low light AF with every newer, pricier body they bring out. As someone who specifically needs to shoot in low light, this leaves me with quite a dilemma. Would I go back to Nikon? They still have not rectified the lens range problem so probably not.


----------



## unix (Dec 12, 2010)

Ubi said:


> I've been using exclusively Canon digital SLRs for the past ten years and have a collection of L glass to use with my 5D. Recently I've been given some Nikon kit to play with by my college and I believe the D700 and D3s blow away anything that Canon has in the market place.



My story is this:
I had two EOS-20D bodies and a 50mm, 24-105 L and a 75-300. I never bought the EF-S lenses because I always anticipated the arrival of cheaper full frame cameras. 

When I bought my first DSLR, the EOS-20D, I felt that the choice was pretty simple. The only serious contender was the Nikon D70. The 20D had slightly more megapixels but still considerably better image quality, especially at high ISOs. The autofocus on the 20D was also better. In general, the 20D felt like a much more solid camera than the Nikon D70. The only thing that bothered me back then was the fact that Nikon D70 had faster flash sync speed.

In 2008, I was going to upgrade to full frame. When the 5DMKII came, it was a huge disappointment to me. I had definitely expected to see a camera with less megapixels, faster frame rate, better high ISO performance and improved autofocus. Instead, they came out with a 21megapixel camera.; the high ISO pictures looked awful and overprocessed to me. The autofocus seemed to be essentially the same as in the 20D. Not necessarily bad but no improvement after 4 years of development seemed like stagnation to me, especially when I looked at what Nikon had in the D700.

After much agony, I decided to buy the Nikon D700 instead and start building a collection of Nikon glass . Yes, I am an amateur; I have never even tried to make money on my pictures. I do understand that for many pros, autofocus isn't that important if you are working with models that are posing for you and that megapixels may be more important if your customer demands 20+ megapixel images. However, I am an amateur and my situation is different and I prefer to use equipment that make sense to me.

I have been more than happy with the D700. It took some time getting used to the Nikon controls but now I am comfortable with them. I especially like the fact that the power button is together with the shutter button.



Ubi said:


> Add to that Canon's absence from the mirrorless and pellicle markets and I wonder what's going on, or not, at big red. Getting rid of a mirror on a trapeze flapping about is a significant and logical development but Canon seems stuck in the past.



I am a skeptic when it comes to mirrorless. At least I don't believe in EVFs any time soon. They would probably need to have much more resolution than what is possible today.



Ubi said:


> If we're forced to do that it will take massive technological innovation to persuade us to sell up again and come back to Canon.



Personally, I am still keeping my Canon lenses and flashes around, just in case they release a better camera than what's in the Nikon lineup. I occasionally even use my 20Ds, especially with the 75-300, since I don't have any telezoom for my Nikon. I wouldn't mind buying the 5DMK3 if it happens to be good enough. 

However, I am still disappointed with Canon. I am especially disappointed with their aggressive pushing ahead in the megapixel race. I feel like their engineers are forced sacrifice image quality in order to satisfy the marketing department's demand for more megapixels. I think this is especially apparent when you look at cameras such as the 50D. Sadly enough, I suspect that Nikon is on the way to descend along the same path down to megapixel hell.


----------



## zsolex (Dec 14, 2010)

Hi,

hesitation between 7D and D300s.
I do not have any lens yet.
If I have to decide now I would choose the 7D. It has amazing video performance, Canon has EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens, Nikon also has same lens but without image stabilisation. The USM is faster than the AF-S lens..
The negatives for the 7D: the 18Mpx is to many for me, instead of this I would prefer less ISO noise. The Nikon AF systems work better in low light condition and the metering is maybe better in Nikon.
The Nikon jpeg processing is better.
I think I have to wait for the Nikon D400.. but the Nikon word -I think- is more expensive than Canon..


----------



## Viggo (Dec 14, 2010)

Can anyone tell me if all Nikons is like the D90 which have to hold each button down while adjusting the wheel? I almost threw it to the floor when trying it, every time I tried to adjust AF or ISO or whatever I pushed the button , released and moved my finger to the wheel, and it had jumped out of that function. This . Is. USELESS!!

Just for that, I would NEVER buy a Nikon, they stow away things in a menu that should be on the outside of the camera.

7d all the way bro... But I agree, it should have been 12 mp....


----------



## unix (Dec 14, 2010)

Viggo said:


> Can anyone tell me if all Nikons is like the D90 which have to hold each button down while adjusting the wheel? I almost threw it to the floor when trying it, every time I tried to adjust AF or ISO or whatever I pushed the button , released and moved my finger to the wheel, and it had jumped out of that function. This . Is. USELESS!!



This is the default behavior on D700 as well but you can configure it. I recommend that you check your D90 to see if you can configure it the way you like it. On the D700 it's under the "CUSTOM SETTINGS MENU", "Controls" , f10 "Release button to use dial". If you change that setting to "ON", then you can release the button and use the wheel.

Personally, I like the default behavior better


----------



## unix (Dec 14, 2010)

zsolex said:


> Hi,
> 
> hesitation between 7D and D300s.



Have you considered D7000?

It is cheaper than D300s but is said to have a better sensor. I believe that the Dxomark measurements are more or less correct and they seem to indicate that the D7000 is a quite big step forward, when it comes to sensor performance.

Of course, the D7000 only has 39 AF points and no Compactflash slot, only SD. I tested the D7000 recently and it seems to be a really nice camera. I also got the impression that it has a slightly larger viewfinder than what is common on DX/APS-C cameras.

Usually, the difference between a new model and the previous model is quite small but it seems like D7000 really is a step forward when it comes to the sensor. Hope that the link works:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/619|0/%28appareil2%29/614|0/%28appareil3%29/680|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Nikon

If not, you can go to dxomark.com and select "Camera Sensor" => "Compare Sensors".


----------



## macfly (Dec 15, 2010)

Ubi, right with you there, been renting the 3ds a lot of late because it is simply a far superior sensor/system/glass combination to my current 1Ds MkIII & L glass.

Canon need to keep at least some focus on those of us who care about ultimate quality at the top end, though I did learn today they haven't even been selling the Mklll for a year because the 5D has wiped out its sales completely!


----------



## aj1575 (Dec 15, 2010)

These discussion are always a bit funny. It reminds me of a BMW-Mercedes discussion. One is faster the other roomier, one has more HP the other more features. But both build top edge cars.

I think we can say the same about Canon and Nikon. I think Nikon has the edge at the moment, a few years back it was Canon. So why switch, in two years from now that could change again, and then switch again? 

I think the most important thing is, that you know your tool. No matter what Canon or Nikon model you use, both have their strength, but none of them has real weakness. Some things might not be ideal, but as long as you are aware of the problem you can work around them.
And I also think like with cars, that the personal taste plays a big role into which camera brand you prefer.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 15, 2010)

macfly said:


> Canon need to keep at least some focus on those of us who care about ultimate quality at the top end, though I did learn today they haven't even been selling the Mklll for a year because the 5D has wiped out its sales completely!


Macfly,
Do you know of somewhere on the web that posts unit sales of dSLRs? I've always been curious. 

Also, awhile ago you said you were going to post a side by side comparison of the 1Ds MkIII and the D3s. I was wondering if you had done so?

Ultimately, I am one of the "leap frog" theorists and note that the 1Ds III was introduced in 2007, the D3s in 2009 and expect a new canon "flagship" to leap frog the D3s for a year or two.
Thanks.


----------



## Admin US West (Dec 15, 2010)

docsmith said:


> Do you know of somewhere on the web that posts unit sales of dSLRs? I've always been curious.



No one publishes accurate sales by model of DSLR's, those sites out there merely get a small amount of data and extrapolate it, which can be extremely inaccurate.

Amazon sells a large number of cameras, and they have a sort of rolling best sellers list, which gives you a idea of what is popular, but, since i don't know exactly how it is computed, take it with a grain of salt. For example, the D7000 is listed high on the list, so they must be counting pre-orders as sales, because they are and have been out of stock or short on stock.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/photo/3017941


----------



## macfly (Dec 16, 2010)

Also, awhile ago you said you were going to post a side by side comparison of the 1Ds MkIII and the D3s. I was wondering if you had done so?

Yes, I have, I'll edit them and pop them up in the next few days. In a nutshell at 100asa they are almost equal, but as speeds rise the Nikon wins, it is almost cleaner at 5000asa than the Canon at 1600.


----------



## Aputure (Dec 27, 2010)

What's not to like about the 7D? 

The 5D2 has unmatched IQ at its price and resolution point. 

the 550D and 60D give you 7D IQ in small, light, cheap bodies. 

What more do you want? 

I agree, some features could be improved, but the lineup is looking pretty strong to me. Can't wait to see what's next in for the 5D and 7D line.



Ubi said:


> Hi, I'm a long time follower of this site and I want to use it to express my disappointment to Canon about their current range of DSLRs.
> 
> I've been using exclusively Canon digital SLRs for the past ten years and have a collection of L glass to use with my 5D. Recently I've been given some Nikon kit to play with by my college and I believe the D700 and D3s blow away anything that Canon has in the market place. Add to that Canon's absence from the mirrorless and pellicle markets and I wonder what's going on, or not, at big red. Getting rid of a mirror on a trapeze flapping about is a significant and logical development but Canon seems stuck in the past.
> 
> I'm not alone in my group in saying that if we don't hear of developments from Canon in new markets soon we're going to move to a combination of Nikon and Panasonic and hang the expense. If we're forced to do that it will take massive technological innovation to persuade us to sell up again and come back to Canon.


----------



## peejay (Dec 27, 2010)

*it aint the gear...*

I'm still shooting an original 5D professionally for some decent clients. It gets the job done. I made the move from an RZ Portra and Provia system about 6 years ago, which I thought I'd never do. When the 5d came along I bought it to play with, I was that impressed by it that I'm still using it today. It's travelled the world on jobs with me and has never let me down. Should I upgrade? maybe. For tax reasons, yes. Because it's inferior? no.

Of corse when I look at 100% crops online of various cameras I can see that I can get better technical results. Will it REALLY improve my photography though? Will it improve my ability to capture time? to perceive? to feel? No it won't.

The thing is when you find something that 'gets the job done', and very well might I add, you can get out and shoot and THAT is when your photography really improves.

Your photography will never improve if you don't get out there and shoot, and even a lowly old original 5D will help you with that.


----------



## Policar (Dec 27, 2010)

*Re: it aint the gear...*



peejay said:


> I made the move from an RZ Portra and Provia system about 6 years ago, which I thought I'd never do. When the 5d came along I bought it to play with, I was that impressed by it that I'm still using it today.



How do you find the 5D as compared with the rz system? I have an rz system I can't justify keeping, but it's hard to get rid of. I just like the feel of it.

I just upgraded from a rebel xt to a t2i. I wish I could say the image quality and finder are significantly better, but they're not. Higher ISOs and live view are nice, however.


----------



## Admin US West (Dec 28, 2010)

*Re: it aint the gear...*



Policar said:


> peejay said:
> 
> 
> > I made the move from an RZ Portra and Provia system about 6 years ago, which I thought I'd never do. When the 5d came along I bought it to play with, I was that impressed by it that I'm still using it today.
> ...



Give it more time and practice. The higher MP sensor requires more care with such things as vibration and shutter speed to get the most out of it. I'd double the shutter speed over what you use on the XT if you want pixel sharp images.


----------



## peejay (Dec 28, 2010)

*Re: it aint the gear...*

I was overwhelmingly surprised by the 5D. It revolutionized my shooting. For the past decade I was tripod bound with the RZ, which I downsized from a behemoth Fuji GX680! Yes it has it's limitations, and in some areas it can't compete with the RZ and film but really those differences are overshadowed by what shooting digitally bought to my my work.

Most of my work is editorial and printed no bigger than double page. Double page doesn't quite compete but it still looks good. Single page is marvelous. It works just fine and I've never in 6 or so years had a complaint.

I miss the result of film. But I don't miss the time it takes, the trips to the Lab, the waiting, returning bad scans, the countless hours of spotting dust...

As for sharpness, Im often adding .5 pixel gaussian blur to the 5D, so really, I don't need any more. I can understand if it is your job to accurately render reality that you'd want the sharpest possible tool, but for me that isn't a consideration. And is there really that much a difference in a real world print at 10x8, 11x14 between the sharpest and what I have? No I doubt it.

While there's a good chance I wont use the RZ again, I wouldn't sell it. That camera and I went places! So now it sits in it's case like time forgot it.







Policar said:


> peejay said:
> 
> 
> > I made the move from an RZ Portra and Provia system about 6 years ago, which I thought I'd never do. When the 5d came along I bought it to play with, I was that impressed by it that I'm still using it today.
> ...


----------



## revup67 (Dec 28, 2010)

zsolex said:


> The D300s colors are closer to the reality, the Canon is a little bit reddish.
> Zs



Try using Custom White Balance and never rely on the camera's built in presets for AWB (especially indoor light). Use a WhiBal card (or similar) to achieve accurate color which any decent camera should offer the option of Custom WB. You should be shooting in RAW also vs. JPG which pre-bake's the settings and much more difficult to manipulate. In RAW you will have full control over your entire image. You can convert to JPG after proper tweaking in DPP if you like. JPG's are included in each RAW image by the way.

Revup67


----------



## Admin US West (Dec 28, 2010)

revup67 said:


> zsolex said:
> 
> 
> > The D300s colors are closer to the reality, the Canon is a little bit reddish.
> ...



Digital sensors only detect black and white. The color is guessed at by the jpeg in camera processor or the raw converter, and can be set to pretty much any color you want. I am not much concerned by the color rendering of a camera, I have lightroom set to render color the way I like it as images import.

Every person perceives color differently, and has their preferences. Thats fine and as it should be. Thats why I don't place much stock in the gushing descriptions of how a particular lens renders better color. Its all in the perception of the photographer.


----------



## Policar (Dec 28, 2010)

*Re: it aint the gear...*



peejay said:


> I was overwhelmingly surprised by the 5D. It revolutionized my shooting. For the past decade I was tripod bound with the RZ, which I downsized from a behemoth Fuji GX680!





peejay said:


> I was overwhelmingly surprised by the 5D. It revolutionized my shooting. For the past decade I was tripod bound with the RZ, which I downsized from a behemoth Fuji GX680!



Thanks for the feedback. That's what I've heard from many who've made the switch. I've always kind of secretly wanted a GX680. I love perspective correction and waist level finders, but it's kind of a silly camera to use at this point when good t/s lenses and liveview exist for digital. If I weren't in it for the video, I would have gone 5D over t2i any day.

I'll improve my technique with the t2i but I think it's my lenses that aren't up to the task. You need a damned good lens to be diffraction-limited by f5.6 or f8 (after which shutter speeds and diffraction spoil resolution). That said, I can't believe how decent the EF-S zooms are for the price. The current kit lens is a real step up from the old ones. It may be easy to be disappointed in Canon's high-end, but their low end offerings are competitive.


----------



## unruled (Dec 29, 2010)

I hear so many people griping about AF in the 5d mkii... can anyone elaborate on that? is it the tracking that is bad? what about single shot AF?

I've had a 350d and now a 40d and I've never been dissapointed really. Even in near pitch black, the AF is fine to me. If I'm doing night landscapes it will often fail to AF -- but then again, those really are times to use manual focus anyway.

also: people who talk about nikons AF being better --- yes, they tend to have way more AF points. But for those of us who use only the center point 90% of the time... does that matter?

Also, note to those saying nikon has leapfrogged canon right now: just keep in mind, it all depends what you are talking about. For video and megapixels, canon is clearly ahead. 

Not to mention, as nikon ups its megapixel count (which it will), its gonna start losing that edge in noise performance.


----------



## Admin US West (Dec 29, 2010)

unruled said:


> I hear so many people griping about AF in the 5d mkii... can anyone elaborate on that? is it the tracking that is bad? what about single shot AF?
> 
> I've had a 350d and now a 40d and I've never been dissapointed really. Even in near pitch black, the AF is fine to me. If I'm doing night landscapes it will often fail to AF -- but then again, those really are times to use manual focus anyway.
> 
> ...



I actually have a 5D MK II, I received in in early December 2 years ago. I also have a 1D MK III, and bought / returned a 7D.

Every camera has its strong points and its weak points. The 5D MK II is strong at autofocusing with the center point, and weak with the outer points. It is particularly good at focusing in low light, and mine beats out my 1D MK III in low light AF.

Here is a example taken at a local school play where lights were out except for dim colored ones.
5D MK II, 50mm f/1.8 MK I


----------



## revup67 (Dec 30, 2010)

scalesusa said:


> revup67 said:
> 
> 
> > zsolex said:
> ...



Digital sensors weren't actually part of the discussion it was the camera's photos appearing more red. And sure, you can make the camera more green, magenta etc. however this can be time consuming and provide terrible results for other scenes you may be shooting especially if you forget to re-adjust. Also, why go through "extra" post production in Lightroom or other s/w when you can get it accurate (or closer to accurate) the first time around with custom White Balance and a White Balance card? If the camera is guessing as you say, why not make the guessing more accurate? It is true "it's in the perception of the photographer" but it's also important to have a good starting point as well.


----------

