Canon and Nikon - Past Their Prime? by Kai Wong
- Thread starter Rienzphotoz
- Start date
scyrene said:
Look at my gear-list ... 8)
My point is that I am a user of Canon gear, hence I will most probably buy more Canon gear. However, this will only happen if Canon produces what I require and not then try to load the price through (for me personally) unnecessary features as well. If Canon doesn't entice me into purchasing their new products, then it is less revenue for them. However, that's their problem (as well as that of their shareholders) and personally I don't care: my current gear suffices for now and other manufacturers are starting to make very enticing and quality offers for the wholesale clearing of my wallet.
Upvote
0
Sella174 said:
Well... that's how most customer-business relationships work. They produce products, we buy them if they suit are needs or desires, or else we don't. I'm sure Canon thinks they have sound reasons for doing what they do, and any one person's requirements will never be met perfectly - it's not a bespoke service.
I personally welcome IS, and would happily see it in every lens if that were possible. You could look at it like film versus digital: non-IS lenses are older technology, and there's no reason a company should produce both older and newer forms. We don't expect Canon to produce new film cameras, so why non-IS versions of each lens? I'm sure people could be found who want both, but they have to look at the bigger picture.
Upvote
0
Sella174 said:
Don't buy the lens. Or buy the non-IS version used. That's two choices right there...
Upvote
0
scyrene said:
Well, it depends on how influential that one person is in influencing the purchases of many others.
scyrene said:
Actually, I would have loved and gladly paid for the level of IS that Canon offers today, back when I was still shooting film. But, alas, IMO, IS, just like the ol' mirror-box, has in certain aspects been made redundant by digital sensor technology.
scyrene said:
Or either. Yes, I agree, Canon isn't looking at the bigger picture.
neuroanatomist said:Don't buy the lens. Or buy the non-IS version used. That's two choices right there...
Why should I settle for 25-year old lens designs if I want a non-IS version? But seriously, I have a third choice ...
Upvote
0
Buy the IS lens, turn off the IS and you have a newly designed non IS lens ... problem solved ;DSella174 said:neuroanatomist said:Don't buy the lens. Or buy the non-IS version used. That's two choices right there...
Why should I settle for 25-year old lens designs if I want a non-IS version? But seriously, I have a third choice ...
Upvote
0
Yes, it seems being forced into paying for features one doesn't need is the philosophy of the current consumer model.
Upvote
0
I want a camera that does not have "green box mode". I don't use it. I don't want to pay the extra money for having it. Canon spent a lot of time and money developing "green box mode" and as far as my purposes go, it is a complete waste.
I don't care that 99 percent of Canon cameras are Rebels and I don't care that 95 percent of those cameras are used almost always in "green box mode". Those people are not real photographers and Canon should not cater to them. I want Canon to ignore the mass market that keeps the lights on at the factory and keeps the company profitable. I want them abandon their revenue base and all economies of scale and to produce exactly what I want and at a lower price.
I don't care that 99 percent of Canon cameras are Rebels and I don't care that 95 percent of those cameras are used almost always in "green box mode". Those people are not real photographers and Canon should not cater to them. I want Canon to ignore the mass market that keeps the lights on at the factory and keeps the company profitable. I want them abandon their revenue base and all economies of scale and to produce exactly what I want and at a lower price.
Upvote
0
Yes, sarcasm, OK.
How about a person purchases a first DSLR, for example a 700D with kit zoom. This person now wants to start exploring the wonderful world of primes, only to discover that, unless settling for basically 20-year old designs, the lenses (bar two) cost more than what was paid for the camera. The potential, world-class photographer never buys a prime, sticks to the kit zoom, discovers that an iPhone takes better pictures, and chucks DSLR photography completely.
In the end, who loses? Only Canon and its shareholders.
How about a person purchases a first DSLR, for example a 700D with kit zoom. This person now wants to start exploring the wonderful world of primes, only to discover that, unless settling for basically 20-year old designs, the lenses (bar two) cost more than what was paid for the camera. The potential, world-class photographer never buys a prime, sticks to the kit zoom, discovers that an iPhone takes better pictures, and chucks DSLR photography completely.
In the end, who loses? Only Canon and its shareholders.
Upvote
0
In a lot of ways I agree with you.... As with most things, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. My best friend is an amazing photographer and has staggering ability. Lately, most of her shooting is with an iPad.... but when the conditions get challenging or that extra level of quality is needed, out comes the Canon and the L-glass.Sella174 said:
As to lenses, the quality of all the new lenses has been moving up. The IQ of these kit lenses is probably higher than that of expensive lenses of 20 years ago.... the quality of the new Lglass is staggering... Back in the days of film there was no such thing as a lens with all the lines of the MTF chart clustered at the top...
As to the big jump in price going up from kit lenses, that's where you get hit by a double whammy. The precision and materials are better and that costs more money. There is less demand for primes and Lglass than kit lenses, so economies of scale suffer... and that gives you a whopping price increase.
That said, Tamron just came out with a 150-600 which makes everything I just said wrong.....
Sigh.... there are no easy answers...
Upvote
0
Whaaaaat?Sella174 said:
??? ??? ??? ... I cannot believe you actually said:"The potential, world-class photographer never buys a prime, sticks to the kit zoom, discovers that an iPhone takes better pictures, and chucks DSLR photography completely"
??? ??? ???So now we are claiming that the "potential world class photographer" does not want to buy an older prime because there is no newer version without IS (even though the older version it a great lens) ... you seriously need to check out the magnificent images made with the older "cheap" prime lenses mounted on "cheap" Canon rebel cameras.
Upvote
0
Rienzphotoz said:
(a) You cannot buy what is not sold anymore, and not everyone is willing to buy used gear. (b) Why should someone settle for a 20-year old design from Canon, when others are offering up-to-date technology? (c) I'm not dishing the "ugly ducklings" - in fact, I constantly use two of 'em - but again point (b) is asked.
Question: Would you be happy using just that old, micro-motor 35mm on your 5DIII camera?
Upvote
0
I can only speak for myself, but after having had an original Canon Digital Rebel for a decade, I was in the market for a new camera. I am not a pro, but a serious amateur that has sold a few photos in local summer festivals. I have not gone beyond 8" x 12" in size, so my 6MP rebel has been good enough for all these years. After renting a number of cameras, I decided on a 6D because of the potential to do large prints (up to 30" wide) for the place I work. Some things that I liked about it compared to my original rebel were the electronic level and the ability to save some custom settings. What I didn't like about it was the size and weight, the lesser zoom and lesser DOF than my crop sensor camera. But it is great for landscapes!
One of the cameras that I had rented was the new mirror-less Olympus EM-5, I liked the smaller size (especially when paired with the reasonably small 75-300mm zoom, 150-600mm equivalent). It also had a electronic level that could be always on - a definite advantage over the 6D's level. It also has the ability to save 4 custom menu settings and lots of other nice features and settings, including in-camera IS. While I didn't ultimately buy the EM-5, when the EM-1 came out, I bought that along with the 75-300mm zoom and their 14-54mm four thirds lens.
I saw that Canon now has the always-on electronic level on the 70d, but I didn't think that was reason enough to purchase that camera as I was looking for something smaller and lighter than the 6D for my other camera. I looked at the SL-1, but as others have mentioned, Canon just won't put it's more advanced features into their lower end cameras. So, no electronic level or saved custom settings (as far as I can remember). Plus, a definite negative when it comes to Canon, in my opinion, is the lack of mid-level lenses. You seem to have basically cheaper kit lenses or extremely expensive L's. Those lenses are becoming even more expensive as Canon adds IS to their lens line-up. With the Olympus, I have in-camera IS and the lenses are comparatively cheaper because of that.
In terms of IQ, when I rented the various cameras, there was little to differentiate them at the print sizes I am likely to use - aside from the FF 6D, which clearly had the advantage. The smaller sensor Olympus cameras - at least in my opinion - were the equal of the Canon crop sensors cameras. The Olympus lenses I have are not their highest pro-level, but their mid-level lenses, but, so far, the 14-54mm lens seem as good (if not better) than the Canon 24-105mm L. To buy a zoom lens longer than 300mm for Canon will break the bank and be far heavier than I would want. The small Olympus 75-300mm (150-600mm) has no real equivalent in Canon's world.
I have no idea how successful mirror-less cameras will be and how they will affect Canon and Nikon, and I really don't care too much as long as Canon and Olympus stay in business! But, for me, Olympus mirror-less proved to be a better alternative than the current lineup of Canon crop-sensor DSLRs.
One of the cameras that I had rented was the new mirror-less Olympus EM-5, I liked the smaller size (especially when paired with the reasonably small 75-300mm zoom, 150-600mm equivalent). It also had a electronic level that could be always on - a definite advantage over the 6D's level. It also has the ability to save 4 custom menu settings and lots of other nice features and settings, including in-camera IS. While I didn't ultimately buy the EM-5, when the EM-1 came out, I bought that along with the 75-300mm zoom and their 14-54mm four thirds lens.
I saw that Canon now has the always-on electronic level on the 70d, but I didn't think that was reason enough to purchase that camera as I was looking for something smaller and lighter than the 6D for my other camera. I looked at the SL-1, but as others have mentioned, Canon just won't put it's more advanced features into their lower end cameras. So, no electronic level or saved custom settings (as far as I can remember). Plus, a definite negative when it comes to Canon, in my opinion, is the lack of mid-level lenses. You seem to have basically cheaper kit lenses or extremely expensive L's. Those lenses are becoming even more expensive as Canon adds IS to their lens line-up. With the Olympus, I have in-camera IS and the lenses are comparatively cheaper because of that.
In terms of IQ, when I rented the various cameras, there was little to differentiate them at the print sizes I am likely to use - aside from the FF 6D, which clearly had the advantage. The smaller sensor Olympus cameras - at least in my opinion - were the equal of the Canon crop sensors cameras. The Olympus lenses I have are not their highest pro-level, but their mid-level lenses, but, so far, the 14-54mm lens seem as good (if not better) than the Canon 24-105mm L. To buy a zoom lens longer than 300mm for Canon will break the bank and be far heavier than I would want. The small Olympus 75-300mm (150-600mm) has no real equivalent in Canon's world.
I have no idea how successful mirror-less cameras will be and how they will affect Canon and Nikon, and I really don't care too much as long as Canon and Olympus stay in business! But, for me, Olympus mirror-less proved to be a better alternative than the current lineup of Canon crop-sensor DSLRs.
Upvote
0
Answer: If I cannot afford the newer lens, and can only afford the "micro-motor 35mm" on my 5DIII camera, yes!Sella174 said:
Also, if "others are offering up-to-date technology", it is not that difficult to switch without spending too much money ... I sold some of my Nikon gear to get a Sony a7, because Nikon and Canon were not offering a FF mirrorless camera. We make choices based on what is important to us, if having a newer prime lens is very imporatnt to me, I will not make excuses about how the world is not fair (or how a certain company's decision to not make the lens I need has made me quit from being a "potential world class photographer"), instead I'll work hard and find a way to save enough money to afford the new lens. We live in 2014, if there is one plentiful thing, the photography world has right now, it is choice.
Upvote
0
I agree - nothing wrong with micro motors! I've still got two at home - a 100mm f/2.8 macro and the ubiquitous 50mm f/1.8. While the 50mm doesn't get much use any more, its still fine optically when not used wide open. The 100mm macro is an excellent lens and I don't think the current "L" version is much sharper (if at all?). The later macro lenses have some operational improvements, but the image quality of the initial lens is still as good as it gets.
By its nature, photography is very gear orientated, and its easy to believe the fallacy that "only the latest and greatest is good enough". But you'd be surprised how much good gear is already out there, and how cheaply some of it sells used. Lack of access to affordable, quality alternatives to new "L" lenses is perhaps the last thing holding back our potential world class photographer.
By its nature, photography is very gear orientated, and its easy to believe the fallacy that "only the latest and greatest is good enough". But you'd be surprised how much good gear is already out there, and how cheaply some of it sells used. Lack of access to affordable, quality alternatives to new "L" lenses is perhaps the last thing holding back our potential world class photographer.
Upvote
0
Rienzphotoz said:
Quite correct. However, the subject of this thread is whether or not Canon and/or Nikon are "past their prime". Personally, I have no qualms about emigrating to another manufacturer; however, a company such as Canon (and Nikon) should take note of why people are leaving. Remember, they want to sell their products to us, and with all the current and future choices from so many manufacturers, they'll be stupid not to be attentive as to our desires.
You mention selling your Nikon gear to purchase the Sony camera, right? Nikon should be saying to itself: "If we hadn't been sitting on our duffs, but instead made our own A7(r) camera - which, by the way, we have the technology to do, but lacking only the desire - this person would now have been buying MORE of our products, instead of selling them. We missed an opportunity and lost a verified, guaranteed, money-in-the-bank buyer."
Hillsilly said:
I agree that for photographers who have been in the Canon world for fifteen-plus years, the old micro-motor primes have proven themselves as good do-ers and most of these/us own a few of them. However, nobody who is now and today entering the Canon camp is - or should be - satisfied with "ancient" technology being passed of as sufficient, no matter how proven it is. This is basic consumer psychology.
The problem, which Canon has created for itself, IMO, is that they offer no clear and painless growth path for the budding photographer who is on a budget.
Upvote
0
Sella174 said:
FYI, I only sold "some" of my Nikon gear (to be precise, D7100+18-300, that too because I had bought them at a huge discount), I did not sell all of my Nikon gear. The only reason I sold it is because I like to buy new stuff that appeal to me and I could not afford to buy it without selling some of the gear that I already have ... definitely not because I think Canon or Nikon make inferior/old tech products. Canon & Nikon cannot and will not make business decisions/product announcements on every single person who buys a Sony or some other competitors product - that would just be plain stupid. Your whole point was about new tech at cheaper rates else the potential world class photographer will end up using only iPhone, due to lack of choice and what not ... which fortunately is not the reality and is a pure figment of your imagination.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
