# The unsung song to praise consistency in Canon's EOS System



## axtstern (Mar 29, 2016)

Just discovered that 2 of my Canon batteries have become very weak over the last two month. While gathering breath to curse Canon I discovered/remembered that I bought these batteries nearly a decade ago and that they serve me now in the 3rd camera (60D, 5DIII and 80).

On comparison...How often does Sony change the lensmount in a decade?


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 29, 2016)

Nothing to add, I just want to go on record and +1 this


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 29, 2016)

How far would you go to 80D at high ISO?

80D in ISO1600 looks like 60D at ISO800?


----------



## axtstern (Mar 29, 2016)

I hope I can tell tonight.
Bought the 80 last thursday after falling in love with the view through the viewer (Everything I wanted but never got from my 5DIII) 
Planned to do some low light high ISO shooting since than but postponed and postponed.
Will post the pics once I have made them


----------



## Besisika (Mar 29, 2016)

axtstern said:


> I hope I can tell tonight.
> Bought the 80 last thursday after falling in love with the view through the viewer (Everything I wanted but never got from my 5DIII)
> Planned to do some low light high ISO shooting since than but postponed and postponed.
> Will post the pics once I have made them


If you still have the 5d III, do you mind comparing ISO 1600 from both? I need just your personal opinion, I am not a pixel peeper (sorry for the lack of better word).


----------



## JohanCruyff (Apr 7, 2016)

Besisika said:


> axtstern said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I can tell tonight.
> ...


 
Pixel peeping! http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos80d&attr13_1=canon_eos70d&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=1600&attr16_2=1600&attr16_3=1600&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.7009143335123289&y=-0.9769259276370868


----------



## J.R. (Apr 7, 2016)

I was reading through Thom Hogan's blog posts on his new D5 and he was pretty dissatisfied with the way the D5 is different in placement of buttons, menus, etc. from the previous models, and it struck me then that this is something Canon users don't have to face when upgrading cameras. 

We probably take too much for granted and never give it a thought.


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 8, 2016)

axtstern said:


> Just discovered that 2 of my Canon batteries have become very weak over the last two month. While gathering breath to curse Canon I discovered/remembered that I bought these batteries nearly a decade ago and that they serve me now in the 3rd camera (60D, 5DIII and 80).
> 
> On comparison...How often does Sony change the lensmount in a decade?



Not sure about SONY's camera line - confusing to me. However, when Canon introduced the EOS mount they abandoned their existing Camera owners who no longer could use old lenses with the new mount. Created quite some waves back then. Nikon famously avoided doing the same.


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 8, 2016)

JohanCruyff said:


> Pixel peeping!



Surprised how bad the 80D looks. Even the 5DII looks better here - banding and all. No comparison in the detail level.


----------



## axtstern (Apr 13, 2016)

> Not sure about SONY's camera line - confusing to me. However, when Canon introduced the EOS mount they abandoned their existing Camera owners who no longer could use old lenses with the new mount. Created quite some waves back then. Nikon famously avoided doing the same.



Actually arround that time I started to work with Canon so I used the EOS 650 and EOS 100
Abandoning the FD Bayonet was the most cleverest thing Canon could do. From a me too product which always lagged behind Nikon they went to a wider bayonet, dedicated engine for every lens etc... Nikon apeased his his owners of outdated lenses but at what costs? The Nikon 601, 701 etc... used the terrible build in engine for AF and could not compete in any way with the Canon AF. By the way I believe that this was the age when Minolta laid the groundwork for their downfall, going the same wy like NIkon with t he lenses but also forcing the users to buy chips for every extra creative mode... well Canon tired a simmilar stunt with the barcode reader for the EOS 10

Years later Canon repeated the dedicated engine per lens with the IS per lens concept. Still not sure if this time Sony took the better path


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 15, 2016)

axtstern said:


> By the way I believe that this was the age when Minolta laid the groundwork for their downfall, going the same wy like NIkon with t he lenses but also forcing the users to buy chips for every extra creative mode...



Your memory fails you here. Minolta had taken both Canon and Nikon by surprise with the first functioning AF and built the most selling SLR ever (7000) with a range of compatible lenses while Canon and Nikon stubournly claimed no one wanted AF.

Anyway, Canon got double lucky. After a disasturous attempt at in-lens AF, that flopped totally, Canon developed their new mount. At the same time Minolta was taken down by a US patent case against them that put everything at a complete standstill. This opened The way for Canon ito come back in strength. Very sad story for Minolta that simply was not ready for the kind of legal attack they were submitted to.


----------



## axtstern (Apr 15, 2016)

At that time I had no Information about the Minolta Situation
Canons Eos 1000 with the Rebel McEnroe was flooding the shelfes.
The Eos 100 was substantial cheaper than a comparable Dynax ans outclassed Nilon with the AF
So it was a nobrainer.
Ah and that was the age when Canon went for faster ans faster glass. The 50 1:1.0 and 200 1:1.8 could ne bought in the shops and the pre internet magazines marveled at their speed not the flaws.

Given zhe usual limit of Iso 400 this was a real topic


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 15, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Seriously, who wants decade old designs to still be meaningful in technology today?
> 
> Would everyone be happy with USB 2.0 and not want USB 3.0?
> 
> Would you rather cars still be thought of as "good" if they only got 25mpg rather than 35mpg (or more)?


Would you buy or even use an USB 3.0 device if it was not backward compatible?
Who uses CAT7 cables and plugs today? Who uses FireWire? Although some people and data sheets state they're better.

And would you buy a faster/better/more economic car if you had to redo your drivers license first?

It's all about reliability, compatibility and/or convenience!
Either you must stay, reliable, compatible with "the past" or you must offer such a great benefit that switching the system is a no-brainer.


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 16, 2016)

axtstern said:


> Ah and that was the age when Canon went for faster ans faster glass. The 50 1:1.0 and 200 1:1.8 could ne bought in the shops and the pre internet magazines marveled at their speed not the flaws.



50 1.0 was very impressive but I have a friend who bought one - and in the fllm days when you could not shoot like crazy getting a decent shot (wide open) was near impossible. Made me avoid expensive glass for a while.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 16, 2016)

I find it amazing that the foundations laid for the EOS lens mount before it was commercially available in 1987 are still viable today in 2016, 29 years later.

Any lens made since introduction will work on a current Canon camera, and any modern lens will function on an EOS 1V film camera (possible exclusions for the functionality of IS systems).

I'm not really familiar with Nikon, but they probably would have been better off in the long run with the clean sheet of paper approach, which must have taken a long time to finally get greenlighted at Canon way back when.

My only complaint would be the sunsetting of components to repair "pro grade" lenses that are still commanding high prices today.


----------

