Anyone else frustrated with Canon?

[JBrown]

I have the 7D. The only camera I would upgrade for would be the 5DIII. Being in Las Vegas I shoot at night a lot. I shoot hand held, no flash. The only lens I have with any speed is the $100 nify-fifty and I don't shoot that much with it even at night. My images have been incredible and if there is even some unwanted noise there's some cheap software to help alleviat noise issues. I abuse the high ISO at times with the 7D and get away with it more so than not.

Some of the best photographs from the masters were taken with a cheap old Brownie camera. These fantastic pieces of work were made great by the users ability to get the most from his/her camera and make things happen in the darkroom.

The camera is important to the point of the photographer feeling comfortable with his tools (no pun intended). But you can have the best and be ****ty with it. Getting the best camera and a prime piece of glass is still going to get you a perfect ****ty photograph. It's still art. You have to show some composition, get the colors, the texture and story and put it all together. If you can't do it with the cheap stuff, you won't be doing it with expensive stuff.

I find this a bit hard to believe. No flash, 2.8 glass at best, and average iso performance camera doesnt add up to a verasatile night time photography setup. So you are either shooting landscapes with a tripod or very still persons using IS lenses.

Also even the best iso reduction software loses a ton of detail at high iso. So if you are cranking the iso you're pictures must be soft.

If I'm wrong I would love to see some pics.

 

[tecboy]

If you are frustrated with Canon....,then....Just go get Nikon!!!

 

[grafxman]

I specifically bought the 6D and abandoned my 7D because Kathy Thorson showed me in this forum how superior the 6D's noise handling is at high ISOs. Since I often photograph museums, many of my photos are inside dark buildings. A high ISO in the 7D results in massive noise. Removing it with the software isn't hard but often results in the softening of the image. I now have a new set of problems with the 6D such as being able to find a lens comparable to my beloved Sigma 18-250 mm macro that I used constantly on my 7D however noisy photos are a thing of the past.

Obviously upgrading my camera isn't going to make me or anyone else a better photographer however my 6D allows me to get better photographs than I could get with the 7D. When I travel 900 miles to photograph a museum I am not under any circumstances whatsoever refrain from taking a photograph of a museum display because the light isn't adequate. I'll take the best photo I can get then make it even better with the software.

 

[6kimages]

I specifically bought the 6D and abandoned my 7D because Kathy Thorson showed me in this forum how superior the 6D's noise handling is at high ISOs. Since I often photograph museums, many of my photos are inside dark buildings. A high ISO in the 7D results in massive noise. Removing it with the software isn't hard but often results in the softening of the image. I now have a new set of problems with the 6D such as being able to find a lens comparable to my beloved Sigma 18-250 mm macro that I used constantly on my 7D however noisy photos are a thing of the past.

Obviously upgrading my camera isn't going to make me or anyone else a better photographer however my 6D allows me to get better photographs than I could get with the 7D. When I travel 900 miles to photograph a museum I am not under any circumstances whatsoever refrain from taking a photograph of a museum display because the light isn't adequate. I'll take the best photo I can get then make it even better with the software.

do faster lenses not help in this case ?

 

[Overread]

6kimages The problem is whilst you can use faster lenses like f1.4 and 1.2 options they grow increasingly more expensive. Furthermore don't forget that the aperture also affects your depth of field, f1.4 is a very thin depth of field that, whilst it might give you the light for a good exposure at a lower ISO, will mean that you could end up with one eye in and one eye out of focus and thus increase your losses from slight shifts in the focal plane. A higher usable ISO is thus still a very important element even when you pair it with wider aperture lenses.

 

[grafxman]

I specifically bought the 6D and abandoned my 7D because Kathy Thorson showed me in this forum how superior the 6D's noise handling is at high ISOs. Since I often photograph museums, many of my photos are inside dark buildings. A high ISO in the 7D results in massive noise. Removing it with the software isn't hard but often results in the softening of the image. I now have a new set of problems with the 6D such as being able to find a lens comparable to my beloved Sigma 18-250 mm macro that I used constantly on my 7D however noisy photos are a thing of the past.

Obviously upgrading my camera isn't going to make me or anyone else a better photographer however my 6D allows me to get better photographs than I could get with the 7D. When I travel 900 miles to photograph a museum I am not under any circumstances whatsoever refrain from taking a photograph of a museum display because the light isn't adequate. I'll take the best photo I can get then make it even better with the software.

do faster lenses not help in this case ?

6kimages this is my PERSONAL take on fast lenses. I think they are generally a waste of money. Most lenses take their best photos at f7.1 or f8 so what's the big deal about an f1.4 or f1.8 lens? Is anyone ever going to actually use it at f1.4 or f1.8 for anything other than photographing a flat surface while standing directly in front of it. The depth of field will be extremely shallow. Nearly everything I photograph is three dimensional. I photograph a lot of information placards in zoos, aquariums and museums but I often have to photograph them at an angle because they are above or below me or someone is standing in front of them. For many years now cameras have been able to take excellent photos without requiring super fast lenses. Back when I was shooting a Nikon F Photomic Tn in the '60s film ASA was often quite low and a fast lens was somewhat important. Those days are long gone. I, for one, would never ever waste any money on a fast lens. What's far more important, at least to me, is having a wide zoom range so the object of interest fills the viewfinder. A fast shutter speed, high ISO, an occasional flash and Canon's DPP software does the rest.

 

[Overread]

6kimages this is my PERSONAL take on fast lenses. I think they are generally a waste of money. Most lenses take their best photos at f7.1 or f8 so what's the big deal about an f1.4 or f1.8 lens? Is anyone ever going to actually use it at f1.4 or f1.8 for anything other than photographing a flat surface while standing directly in front of it. The depth of field will be extremely shallow.

I agree with your point on the depth of field aspects, but you are forgetting a few things:

1) Whilst most lenses reach their peek of sharpness around the f8-f10 area (varies from lens to lens) that doesn't invalidate their wider apertures. Whilst the shot might not be "as sharp" it is often far from unusable. Indeed many of the very wide and very high priced lenses can take a very good shot wide open or just one stop down from wide open.

2) For your specific setup you want more depth in your shots, so the creative or functional use of shooting wide open isn't a factor - that's more of a personal factor than an overall view of wide aperture lenses. Some people specifically want that ultra thin depth of field to work with.

3) The wide maximum aperture allows more light into the camera, this greatly helps provide not just a brighter viewfinder image, but also more light for the AF sensors to work with. Even if you're shooting at f8 the focusing and viewfinder image are from wide open and thus gain from having that wider maximum option.

I do agree that the highly expensive options like the 50mm f1.2 are not for everyone and that the difference between an f1.2 and f1.4 is not night and day for most people and doesn't always justify the big jump in price that divides the two for the average photographer.

 

[bentcountershaft]

6kimages this is my PERSONAL take on fast lenses. I think they are generally a waste of money. Most lenses take their best photos at f7.1 or f8 so what's the big deal about an f1.4 or f1.8 lens? Is anyone ever going to actually use it at f1.4 or f1.8 for anything other than photographing a flat surface while standing directly in front of it. The depth of field will be extremely shallow. Nearly everything I photograph is three dimensional. I photograph a lot of information placards in zoos, aquariums and museums but I often have to photograph them at an angle because they are above or below me or someone is standing in front of them. For many years now cameras have been able to take excellent photos without requiring super fast lenses. Back when I was shooting a Nikon F Photomic Tn in the '60s film ASA was often quite low and a fast lens was somewhat important. Those days are long gone. I, for one, would never ever waste any money on a fast lens. What's far more important, at least to me, is having a wide zoom range so the object of interest fills the viewfinder. A fast shutter speed, high ISO, an occasional flash and Canon's DPP software does the rest.

I wouldn't be so quick to write of the usefulness of fast lenses. The secret to using a wide aperture and still having a workable depth of field is camera to subject distance. That distance has the single greatest impact on the depth of field out of any of the other variables like aperture, sensor size and focal length.

 

[Derrel]

Not too long ago, there was a brief article on the web, maybe at dPreview, where one testing facility had noted that lenses faster than about f/2 do not seem to be getting the FULL benefit of wider apertures when used on digital sensors...I searched for the article for a few minutes but could not find it. It seems like I recall them saying that digital sensors seem to have a normal,linear response to increasing aperture width in the "normal" range of f/stops, but that wider than f/2 brings less ACTUAL increase in exposure than it should, numerically, and that as a result, at least some of the camera makers seem to be "fudging" the ISO settings by increasing ISO when wider apertures are used, as a way to seamlessly compensate for the loss of what one could call effective aperture.

Now in CANON News...the long-rumored Canon 70D is supposed to be formally announced tomorrow, 2 July, 2013....according to the rumor sites at least! SO, maybe tomorrow, we can read all the whining from Canonites disappointed in the new 70D's feature set, price, and specs!

 

[pixmedic]

Its like anything else...
if you cant afford the ABSOLUTE TOP OF THE LINE BEST, you just have to settle for what you can afford.
not saying you NEED the best...but if you bought any camera other than the super upper end flagship model...you settled.
The issue isnt that Canon or Nikon or whoever DOESN'T offer all the features in a camera....its that they don't offer ALL those features in a camera EVERYONE can afford.
so, until someone either gets more money to afford the top end camera, OR the camera manufacturers start selling the top end gear a 1/4 the price, there will always be people complaining about the entry level cameras and what features they have.

 

[grafxman]

6kimages this is my PERSONAL take on fast lenses. I think they are generally a waste of money. Most lenses take their best photos at f7.1 or f8 so what's the big deal about an f1.4 or f1.8 lens? Is anyone ever going to actually use it at f1.4 or f1.8 for anything other than photographing a flat surface while standing directly in front of it. The depth of field will be extremely shallow.

I agree with your point on the depth of field aspects, but you are forgetting a few things:

1) Whilst most lenses reach their peek of sharpness around the f8-f10 area (varies from lens to lens) that doesn't invalidate their wider apertures. Whilst the shot might not be "as sharp" it is often far from unusable. Indeed many of the very wide and very high priced lenses can take a very good shot wide open or just one stop down from wide open.

2) For your specific setup you want more depth in your shots, so the creative or functional use of shooting wide open isn't a factor - that's more of a personal factor than an overall view of wide aperture lenses. Some people specifically want that ultra thin depth of field to work with.

3) The wide maximum aperture allows more light into the camera, this greatly helps provide not just a brighter viewfinder image, but also more light for the AF sensors to work with. Even if you're shooting at f8 the focusing and viewfinder image are from wide open and thus gain from having that wider maximum option.

I do agree that the highly expensive options like the 50mm f1.2 are not for everyone and that the difference between an f1.2 and f1.4 is not night and day for most people and doesn't always justify the big jump in price that divides the two for the average photographer.

I suspected that some folks here would take exception to my comments that why I put "PERSONAL" in caps. I don't deny that a few people seem to find a use for fast lenses. However, I do occasionally find myself in a situation where a depth of field issue arises. In fact here is an example of just such an occurrence:

IMG_0752 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Notice that the Great Blue Heron's head is in focus while the foliage between the heron and me is blurred. I simply opened up the Sigma 50-500 mm all the way to 6.3, focused on the bird's body using the back focus button, repositioned and made the shot. I take a lot of photos under a very, very wide range of circumstances and situations. I just have never felt the need for fast lens and I can't help but be slightly sceptical as to their necessity.

The toughest photo shoot I ever had anywhere was here:

Henry Plant Museum - a set on Flickr

Anyplace where there was no window, there was no light to speak of. Flash was not allowed. The only artificial lighting was with the ancient Edison lights which have about 5 candle power if that. It was a nightmare. However I never once wished for a super fast lens. The Sigma 18-250 mm was often wide open, the shutter speed was 1/13 or slower and the ISO was quite high. I often had to manually focus because the 7D just couldn't manage the situation. Still I never wished for a fast lens. I managed OK with what I had. Besides fast lens are normally not zoom lenses so they would be of no use to me.

I just now remembered something from over 40 years ago. This is what happens when you get old. When I bought my Nikon F Photomic Tn I bought 3 lenses, a 50 mm 1.4 Nikkor which came with it, a 55 mm micro Nikkor and an inexpensive Sun zoom lens with a trigger grip. It was the Sun zoom that stayed on the camera while the others gathered dust.

 

[6kimages]

I specifically bought the 6D and abandoned my 7D because Kathy Thorson showed me in this forum how superior the 6D's noise handling is at high ISOs. Since I often photograph museums, many of my photos are inside dark buildings. A high ISO in the 7D results in massive noise. Removing it with the software isn't hard but often results in the softening of the image. I now have a new set of problems with the 6D such as being able to find a lens comparable to my beloved Sigma 18-250 mm macro that I used constantly on my 7D however noisy photos are a thing of the past.

Obviously upgrading my camera isn't going to make me or anyone else a better photographer however my 6D allows me to get better photographs than I could get with the 7D. When I travel 900 miles to photograph a museum I am not under any circumstances whatsoever refrain from taking a photograph of a museum display because the light isn't adequate. I'll take the best photo I can get then make it even better with the software.

do faster lenses not help in this case ?

6kimages this is my PERSONAL take on fast lenses. I think they are generally a waste of money. Most lenses take their best photos at f7.1 or f8 so what's the big deal about an f1.4 or f1.8 lens? Is anyone ever going to actually use it at f1.4 or f1.8 for anything other than photographing a flat surface while standing directly in front of it. The depth of field will be extremely shallow. Nearly everything I photograph is three dimensional. I photograph a lot of information placards in zoos, aquariums and museums but I often have to photograph them at an angle because they are above or below me or someone is standing in front of them. For many years now cameras have been able to take excellent photos without requiring super fast lenses. Back when I was shooting a Nikon F Photomic Tn in the '60s film ASA was often quite low and a fast lens was somewhat important. Those days are long gone. I, for one, would never ever waste any money on a fast lens. What's far more important, at least to me, is having a wide zoom range so the object of interest fills the viewfinder. A fast shutter speed, high ISO, an occasional flash and Canon's DPP software does the rest.

In my case Hockey is my main shoot, However I am still a novice and will not debate with you but anything slower than 2.8 is useless for action in a rink

 

[molested_cow]

Totally not frustrated with Canon cus I don't use one!

Come on, there's frustration with every brand. I'd love a spec bump based on the Nikon D700 but they came out with two models that, while opened new market sectors, doesn't quite meet my needs.

Let me tell you what's frustrating. There's no car on the market that is RWD, manual transmission, high powered with tons of quality interior space and one that looks great on the outside, reliable, low maintenance cost, for the price of a Honda civic. NONE, not even ONE on the entire world!!!

 

[kathyt]

Here is an example. I used to use 2 speed lights for receptions off camera. During receptions things are moving so fast and I want to catch some of those crazy dance shots or something going on in the other part of the room. Instead of moving anything I can now just bump up my ISO and use the DJ's ambient light. With my Mark ii I did not do this because the noise was not acceptable at all.

For reals?

Can I see?

You want to see a shot where I just use my camera at a high ISO and the DJ's lighting w/o flash? Is that what you mean? These are my favorite types of shots. My style of reception shooting is very dramatic. Not cookie cutter at all.

 

[tecboy]

Oh yea, I'm frustrated with Canon. I can't run Lightroom in my DSLR. It doesn't have Intel processor.