Expect more delays from Canon for both cameras and lenses

[amorse]

 

[Sleepy Joe]

Typical. Don’t bother trying to address the question, because you can’t. Nor can you back up your assertion that your ‘truth’ (social?) is anything other than your opinion.

Rational people consider the credibility of someone making an accusation. Since yours is hovering at zero, your accusations are meaningless.

Stay comfortably in your little bubble where you are secure in the belief that you’re right.

 

[Sleepy Joe]

I refuse to debate someone that doesn't even have mutual respect for the other person and there is nothing to debate or answer in the first place.

You know I'm right. That's why you are hurling insults my way, character attacks, trying to speak with authority with unrelated qualifications and being arrogant in the proccess. And for what? For something you supposedly agree with? You wouldn't do that if we agreed.

You what to debate, be respectful.

You've been sorely lacking that it is not just with me.

You don't know who I am, but you know me and I've known you online for a long time. Since 2008 in fact. Just Bryan doesn't let you cut loose with your rudeness and arrogance.

You can probably guess, but I'll let you wonder.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I refuse to debate someone that doesn't even have mutual respect for the other person and there is nothing to debate or answer in the first place.

I began with respect, which continued until you started making ridiculous, unsupported claims...at that point, you lost that respect.

You know I'm right. That's why you are hurling insults my way, character attacks, trying to speak with authority with unrelated qualifications and being arrogant in the proccess. And for what? For something you supposedly agree with? You wouldn't do that if we agreed.

Lol, right about what? You have made one claim that was correct (that we don’t know the MP count of the R1), and several other claims for which you have not provided any sort of support. What evidence do you have that CRguy does not receive tips and post them? I am certain that he receives leaked information from sources, though I cannot share the reason for that certainty. But then, I'm not the one who claimed that all the information posted was fabricated. That was you.

Moreover, your second post here stated, "But nothing that I would need this worthless website for." (Yes, it took you exactly two posts to begin making offensive and asinine claims.) Many people spend a fair amount of time here discussing Canon gear, discussing technical issues, sharing information and sharing images. You might want to consider that you probably lost the respect of quite a few people here. Some of them are simply too nice to call you an ass.

You then claimed that I spread lies. Talk about personal insults, that's very much one. However, as I stated, I consider the source...and since you lost my respect, I have no reason to believe you are telling the truth about that, or anything else. Feel free to try and prove me wrong. I've asked three times now, and you have refused. That's really all the answer I need, because if you could have supported your claims, you would have done so already.

You what to debate, be respectful.

For example, accusing someone of spreading lies? Is that the mutual respect you're talking about? Sheesh.

You've been sorely lacking that it is not just with me.

No, it's not. Sadly, there are many people in this world that don't deserve respect. I always start with the belief that they do, until proven otherwise. I must often revise my initial belief, as I did in your case.

You don't know who I am, but you know me and I've known you online for a long time. Since 2008 in fact. Just Bryan doesn't let you cut loose with your rudeness and arrogance.

You can probably guess, but I'll let you wonder.

Honestly, I could not care less. Evidently you are/were at some point on TDP, sadly it's mostly crickets chirping there now compared to a decade ago (though Kayaker72 is keeping the lights on and I do enjoy the images shared there along with the limited discussion). Bryan and I remain friends, and I have never had a post on TDP moderated or deleted. Not that Bryan moderates the forum, anyway. More lies from you, not that I find that surprising in the least.

 

[justaCanonuser]

...and the 14-35 beats the Nikon on IQ as well--and serve me far better than the bulkier and less capable Nikon lenses.

That's an interesting development in recent years. Until about a decade ago, Nikon's wide angle lenses were mostly praised to be better than Canon's (not sure if that was always justified), whereas Canon was known for better supertele lenses - what was true. After reading a rare lab test of super tele lenses in a German photozine, my wife decided to add a Sigma 500mm f74.5 to her Nikon gear, because it outperformed Nikon's actual Nikkor 500mm f/4.0 VR lens optically, and on top nearly all Nikon tele lenses that where tested, suffered from decentered lens parts. To get back to wide angle lenses: Canon obviously can make very good glass here, too.

 

[justaCanonuser]

The z600mm is really tempting to me. Yes, I have other Nikon exotics, but the light weight and excellent IQ makes it very difficult to skip. Perhaps I'll pick one up when I finally retire from my day job...

I try to convince my wife, a Nikonian, to go for that lens. She still uses her Sigma 500mm f/4.5, which is optically a very good lens, but has the typical 3rd party AF performance drawbacks. But she still is hesitating to jump from her DSLRs to the Z cameras, because of her bad experience with Nikon's quality issues that frustrates her. If she wouldn't have so many lenses and cameras from Nikon's analogue era, she already would have changed to Canon, simply because I only had one repair in the past 15 years (thumb wheel of my old 7D was broken), whereas she had a long series of partly expensive repairs (broken mirror box, dead buttons after a bit of rain, broken AF drives...).

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's an interesting development in recent years. Until about a decade ago, Nikon's wide angle lenses were mostly praised to be better than Canon's (not sure if that was always justified), whereas Canon was known for better supertele lenses - what was true.

It's certainly true that the Nikon 14-24/2.8 G was a well-regarded lens for many years while Canon's UWA zooms started at 16/17mm. I also suspect Canon's UWA lineup took a perception hit from the relatively poor (but also rather affordable) EF 17-40/4L. But even the EF 16-35/2.8 lenses (there were three versions) were not as optically good in the corners as Nikon lenses. The EF 16-35/4L IS offered some optical improvements.

Today with the RF lenses, the picture is very different. Canon's UWA lenses are excellent, and Nikon doesn't have anything to match the 10-20/4L.

 

[justaCanonuser]

It's certainly true that the Nikon 14-24/2.8 G was a well-regarded lens for many years while Canon's UWA zooms started at 16/17mm. I also suspect Canon's UWA lineup took a perception hit from the relatively poor (but also rather affordable) EF 17-40/4L. But even the EF 16-35/2.8 lenses (there were three versions) were not as optically good in the corners as Nikon lenses. The EF 16-35/4L IS offered some optical improvements.

Today with the RF lenses, the picture is very different. Canon's UWA lenses are excellent, and Nikon doesn't have anything to match the 10-20/4L.

That's why I decided to get a Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 for my Canon gear many years ago. As a photographer, I am more on the 50mm+ side of life, so that Zeiss was enough for me and still is great to use - as long as one doesn't shoot architecture (moustache distortion).

 

[neuroanatomist]

as long as one doesn't shoot architecture (moustache distortion).

Something a lens profile could correct? DxO PhotoLab supports Canon MILCs with the Zeiss Distagon 18/3.5, and at least with other lenses I have that exhibit mustache distortion, it corrects well enough even for architecture.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Something a lens profile could correct? DxO PhotoLab supports Canon MILCs with the Zeiss Distagon 18/3.5, and at least with other lenses I have that exhibit mustache distortion, it corrects well enough even for architecture.

I know, that was a remedy for me. Darktable, a freeware program, also once offered a correcting profile. That was one of the reasons I started to use Darktable. Unfortunately, they stopped to update the Mac version. Darktable is a bit "edgy" to use and not perfectly stable, typical for freeware, but it offers some great tools.

 

[Sleepy Joe]

I began with respect, which continued until you started making ridiculous, unsupported claims...at that point, you lost that respect.


Lol, right about what? You have made one claim that was correct (that we don’t know the MP count of the R1), and several other claims for which you have not provided any sort of support. What evidence do you have that CRguy does not receive tips and post them? I am certain that he receives leaked information from sources, though I cannot share the reason for that certainty. But then, I'm not the one who claimed that all the information posted was fabricated. That was you.

Moreover, your second post here stated, "But nothing that I would need this worthless website for." (Yes, it took you exactly two posts to begin making offensive and asinine claims.) Many people spend a fair amount of time here discussing Canon gear, discussing technical issues, sharing information and sharing images. You might want to consider that you probably lost the respect of quite a few people here. Some of them are simply too nice to call you an ass.

You then claimed that I spread lies. Talk about personal insults, that's very much one. However, as I stated, I consider the source...and since you lost my respect, I have no reason to believe you are telling the truth about that, or anything else. Feel free to try and prove me wrong. I've asked three times now, and you have refused. That's really all the answer I need, because if you could have supported your claims, you would have done so already.


For example, accusing someone of spreading lies? Is that the mutual respect you're talking about? Sheesh.


No, it's not. Sadly, there are many people in this world that don't deserve respect. I always start with the belief that they do, until proven otherwise. I must often revise my initial belief, as I did in your case.


Honestly, I could not care less. Evidently you are/were at some point on TDP, sadly it's mostly crickets chirping there now compared to a decade ago (though Kayaker72 is keeping the lights on and I do enjoy the images shared there along with the limited discussion). Bryan and I remain friends, and I have never had a post on TDP moderated or deleted. Not that Bryan moderates the forum, anyway. More lies from you, not that I find that surprising in the least.

You were disrespectful from the beginning and only got worse. You are very arrogant and anyone that disagrees with you fire back in typical leftstist fashion and try to speak with authority just because you have an unrelated degree in the neurological field. Which you love to rub in people's faces constantly.

Which doesn't even make you right in the first place and just another arrogant move because you think you are better than everyone else.


And I disdain that with a passion.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You were disrespectful from the beginning and only got worse. You are very arrogant and anyone that disagrees with you fire back in typical leftstist fashion and try to speak with authority just because you have an unrelated degree in the neurological field. Which you love to rub in people's faces constantly.

Which doesn't even make you right in the first place and just another arrogant move because you think you are better than everyone else.

And I disdain that with a passion.

So you’re still unwilling to support your claims with any actual evidence. Manifestly, that’s because you are unable to do so. Your pathetic attempts at deflection are as sad as they are trite.

Let me remind you of the first sentence of your first post:

You do realize that everything here if it didn't come from Canon is all fake news.

That is a statement I know to be unequivocally false. So right from the start, your blatant lie cost you the respect I typically afford someone by default.

My response was mildly condescending, “It's cute that you think a lack of real information will quell the whining in response to a 24 MP rumor.” Intentionally so, because I give what I get and you began with condescension (“You do realize that…”).

I also quoted a prior post of mine pointing out that I’m fully aware that not all information posted here is true (as should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence given the site name). You have yet to support your very first claim that nothing here is true (reposted Canon statements notwithstanding).

As for the rest of your diatribe, that’s as blatantly false as your initial claim. I certainly don’t think I’m better or more knowledgeable than everyone else. I do have experience in optics and business, both of which are relevant here. There are plenty of people in this world who I know are smarter than I am, including a few here on this forum…people who I respect greatly. However, you are not among them.

You obviously came here seeking to agitate, and when you got the reaction you were aiming for, you started tossing insults and playing the victim card. Reminds me of a certain recently convicted felon with hands best sized to shoot with an EOS M 100. Probably someone who inspires you.

Regardless, this ‘discussion’ has become pointless. Feel free to reply or not, you’re not worth any more of my time.

 

[Sleepy Joe]

So you’re still unwilling to support your claims with any actual evidence. Manifestly, that’s because you are unable to do so. Your pathetic attempts at deflection are as sad as they are trite.

Let me remind you of the first sentence of your first post:

That is a statement I know to be unequivocally false. So right from the start, your blatant lie cost you the respect I typically afford someone by default.

My response was mildly condescending, “It's cute that you think a lack of real information will quell the whining in response to a 24 MP rumor.” Intentionally so, because I give what I get and you began with condescension (“You do realize that…”).

I also quoted a prior post of mine pointing out that I’m fully aware that not all information posted here is true (as should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence given the site name). You have yet to support your very first claim that nothing here is true (reposted Canon statements notwithstanding).

As for the rest of your diatribe, that’s as blatantly false as your initial claim. I certainly don’t think I’m better or more knowledgeable than everyone else. I do have experience in optics and business, both of which are relevant here. There are plenty of people in this world who I know are smarter than I am, including a few here on this forum…people who I respect greatly. However, you are not among them.

You obviously came here seeking to agitate, and when you got the reaction you were aiming for, you started tossing insults and playing the victim card. Reminds me of a certain recently convicted felon with hands best sized to shoot with an EOS M 100. Probably someone who inspires you.

Regardless, this ‘discussion’ has become pointless. Feel free to reply or not, you’re not worth any more of my time.

Everyone here can read what you said. Hell, you started this whole thing with an insult to anyone who dares have a different opinion about resolution and that how dare they expect Canon to have a similar levels of resolution as it's competitors with a more than likely $6500 price tag, if not higher. What a radical thing to say.

And now you are flipping the script by saying that this place DOES have inside sources when earlier you said that it doesn't.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I know, that was a remedy for me. Darktable, a freeware program, also once offered a correcting profile. That was one of the reasons I started to use Darktable. Unfortunately, they stopped to update the Mac version. Darktable is a bit "edgy" to use and not perfectly stable, typical for freeware, but it offers some great tools.

Yeah, Darktable winding down MacOS support was a bummer. I'm not aware of any good freeware RAW converters for Mac (well, DPP is free and Apple Photos will handle RAW files...but I said good ones). DxO does a very good job, especially with optical corrections and NR, and is fairly reasonably priced if you buy it when they offer the pre-Black Friday discounts (usually those start in early November). One of the things I like about it is that you do not need a paid update to the software unless you buy a camera newer than the last major update – if you keep your current/supported camera all future lens modules are available.

 

[scyrene]

in typical leftstist fashion

Red flag ahoy!

you started this whole thing with an insult to anyone who dares have a different opinion about resolution and that how dare they expect Canon to have a similar levels of resolution as it's competitors with a more than likely $6500 price tag, if not higher. What a radical thing to say.

Where? Can you include the quote?

 

[BBarn]

I suppose it's the nature of rumors, but the purpose of the site is fuzzy. There are clearly things known by those running the site that are not shared here. They survive by spreading rumors, but facts are withheld for reasons of integrity. Some are content with such an arrangement, others are not.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I suppose it's the nature of rumors, but the purpose of the site is fuzzy. There are clearly things known by those running the site that are not shared here. They survive by spreading rumors, but facts are withheld for reasons of integrity. Some are content with such an arrangement, others are not.

The purpose of this site is to generate revenue for its owner. Many photo-related websites have dropped off as the ILC market tanked. CR is still here, so they’re probably doing something right.

Withholding some information makes sense. Say, hypothetically, CRguy was sent the advanced user guide for a forthcoming camera a month or two before the announcement. Full specs, every dial, button and function. He might share it confidentially with someone for a second opinion on the validity, but posting everything in there would possibly compromise the source. That would cut off a source of information…and of course have deleterious consequences for the individual.

So instead, CRguy posts a couple of lower-level specs. Then a higher-level spec or two as the announcement gets closer. Protects the source, drives site traffic and revenue, and gives us something to discuss (or whine about, as the case may be).

Want to know the best part? Anyone who is not content with such an arrangement is not compelled to visit the site.

 

[BBarn]

Want to know the best part? Anyone who is not content with such an arrangement is not compelled to visit the site.

Yes. Of course, they are also at liberty to express frustration, disappointment, and objections to the arrangement at the risk of being banned from posting.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes. Of course, they are also at liberty to express frustration, disappointment, and objections to the arrangement at the risk of being banned from posting.

Indeed. Of course, it’s important to understand that such expressions may not be well received, and also that this is not a public town square but rather a privately run website.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Yeah, Darktable winding down MacOS support was a bummer. I'm not aware of any good freeware RAW converters for Mac (well, DPP is free and Apple Photos will handle RAW files...but I said good ones). DxO does a very good job, especially with optical corrections and NR, and is fairly reasonably priced if you buy it when they offer the pre-Black Friday discounts (usually those start in early November). One of the things I like about it is that you do not need a paid update to the software unless you buy a camera newer than the last major update – if you keep your current/supported camera all future lens modules are available.

Thanks. Currently, in fact, I use DPP mostly because Canon's native RAW converter has massively improved, and if need to edit an image further, I use an old Photoshop CS 6 on an old PC. I said goodbye to Adobe, including LR, when they switched to subscription only products. I prefer an investment once for some years and then pay for an upgrade. That's much easier to handle in terms of cost control - photography is my hobby (okay, I sometimes sell some bird images to newspapers, but that's a nice addition for my travel savings).

One alternative would be Capture One Pro, since they still offer also a non-subscription option, or DxO as the other one. I know some pro photographers, they all use Capture One, but DxO's denoising tools are in particular intriguing for me. I have e.g. thousands of very nice images of purple herons (mating, breeding, feeding their chicks), a rare bird in Germany and the colony I knew is gone now. But most of them are shot with my old 7DII, and I'd love to postprocess those RAW files again with denoising. My main problem? Time available to do this...