Anyone else frustrated with Canon?

[JBrown]

Am I the only one frustrated with Canon? I have been on the market for a new camera specifically a full frame and Canon just dropped the ball.

I want to buy the 6D, but the AF system is really holding me back. Its not that the 6d is all that bad of a camera, its that the D600 exists. As if mocking me to switch to nikon.

The main issue is I don't see a specific way forward. The 5d3 is out of my range/needs and there won't be a refresh on the 6d for years. Even if the 7d2 and 70d are spectacular they won't have the noise performance of the full frames.

I much prefer the camera ergonomics of Canon and already have a decent amount tied up in gear. I know some would say just buy the 6d, but I have a problem paying that much for a camera with a neutered af system.

Just frustrated with Canon

 

[Light Guru]

Am I the only one frustrated with Canon? I have been on the market for a new camera specifically a full frame and Canon just dropped the ball.

I want to buy the 6D, but the AF system is really holding me back.

The 5d3 is out of my range/needs and there won't be a refresh on the 6d for years

So in other words your upset that Canon is not selling a high end camera at a inexpensive price.

Canon did "drop the ball" as you say they made a fair marketing decision. Don't be upset because YOU are not willing to pay a fair price for the 5D3.

 

[davisphotos]

The 6D is comparable to the 5D2 at a lower price and with some added features. What are you upset about?

 

[gsgary]

I can't see why everyone is so bothered about noise, photography is about light if there is not enough don't take the shot, low light capability is only needed for concerts,sport, news my 5D has served me well and will do for more years to come even though i have gone back to film with 2 Leicas neither has AF and 99% of shots are in focus

 

[JBrown]

In a world where only Canon exists the 6d is a great camera. However nikon exists and the d600 just shows what the 6d could have been.

Also how old is the 5d2 now and how is that even relative to current tech and competitor offerings?

Not meant to be a bitching thread, just frustrating looking at the optiins available and none of them suiting my needs and nothing on the horizon any time soon.

 

[Derrel]

I can understand some of your frustration. For quite a while, Canon was substantially ahead of all other competitors in the d-slr market. Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Samsung, Olympus all made d-slr cameras and ALL were technically behind on sensor performance. AT that time, as a long-time Nikon user, I bought a moderately nice Canon system of two bodies and 10 lenses to see if I could make the switch fully to Canon. I even bought the full-frame Canon 5D, at a time that was around two years before Nikon had its very first full-frame camera, the D3.

But since 2007 or so, Canon has begun, as Michael Reichmann called it, "Failing to innovate." I read the same thing from dPreview's writers...Canon has lately begun iterating, but not innovating much. LIke the new T5i...it's the basically the SAME camera as the T4i--except the mode dial rotates 360 degrees, with no end-click stop, and it weight .2 oz more, and the flash goes .2 foot farther. (And in all fairness, it has a new Digic processor).

As to the 6D versus Nikon D600; Nikon was lagging behind Canon, so Nikon FIRED huge numbers of senior and upper- and mid-level engineers, the dolts who were responsible for the debacle that was the D2 generation, and promoted younger, hungrier designers, and told them, "Do better than the guys who had your jobs before you, or you'll be getting fired too." What happened is that Nikon began down-migrating the professional-level stuff, like the focusing system, from their flagship models, into mid-level cameras. They designed newer, better sensors. They began to innovate. They are after all, the only true "camera and imaging company" in the d-slr business. All the other companies are huge, diversified companies. Nikon is smaller, and makes imaging-related stuff. And as to the 6D versus D600; Nikon realized back in 2007 that they simply needed to create better cameras than their competition, and so they have set out to do just that. The fact that Canon charges another $500 or so more for their 5D Mark III than Nikon prices their D800 at is an example of a smaller competitor trying to appeal to consumers on features and value and price/performance. Nikon is in effect, trying to get market share by offering better cameras than they used to. Canon is still continuing with the good sensor in EOS Elan, $389-class camera body. They did that with the 5D, then the 5D-II; they HAD to make upgrades on the 5D-III because it has to compete against the D800.

Still, I think maybe you're being a bit unfair to the 6D.

 

[JBrown]

Noise performance is the main thing worth upgrading for. For your needs it may not matter, but I hate to be in a position where I either can't take the shot or its got so much noise its not worth taking. Lots of interesting stuff happens at night.

 

[gsgary]

In a world where only Canon exists the 6d is a great camera. However nikon exists and the d600 just shows what the 6d could have been.

Also how old is the 5d2 now and how is that even relative to current tech and competitor offerings?

Not meant to be a bitching thread, just frustrating looking at the optiins available and none of them suiting my needs and nothing on the horizon any time soon.

New cameras are getting full of crap that you don't need, a better camera will not make you a better photographer

 

[gsgary]

Noise performance is the main thing worth upgrading for. For your needs it may not matter, but I hate to be in a position where I either can't take the shot or its got so much noise its not worth taking. Lots of interesting stuff happens at night.

I don't think so the pubs are open

 

[Light Guru]

a better camera will not make you a better photographer

Exactly.

 

[Derrel]

a better camera will not make you a better photographer

Exactly.

You know, I do not agree with that statement. I recently moved wayyyyyy up, from a Nikon D2x and Canon 5D pair of cameras I had for seven and five years,respectively to a Nikon D3x. The kind of pictures I can now take easily were impossible with the D2x and its chitty performance at higher ISO levels, or with the 5D with its list of issues. Single-exposure almost HDR dynamic range shots? NO problem! Autofocus on the money even with slower lenses? No problem for the D3x. SHooting surfing against the light? No more pure silhouettes with the better DR of the better camera.

Seriously; a pro-level camera improves almost everything. It makes some things that are simply NOT possible, quite easily possible. The idea that a better camera will not make one a better photographer is a cute little saying...but there's a reason, a whole list of reasons actually, why Nikon and Canon have made these high-end flagship level cameras for over a decade now.

If the camera did not matter, professionals would all be shooting crap like Nikon D40 and Canon Digital Rebel Xt bodies. But they are not, are they...

Here's a few analogies that show what a load of B.S. the "A better camera will not make you a better photographer" statement is"

"A better race car will not give you the chance to win more races." "Being stronger will not win you more shot-put competitions." "A faster computer will not allow you to process thousands of images any faster than a slow computer." "A sharper knife makes no difference when filleting fish--a dull knife is plenty good."

Sorry...cameras are tools. Better tools are..better...better tools allow a person to perform better work, faster,easier, and more often, with less hassle, and the net result is "better" work product, time after time after time.

 

[pixmedic]

Noise performance is the main thing worth upgrading for. For your needs it may not matter, but I hate to be in a position where I either can't take the shot or its got so much noise its not worth taking. Lots of interesting stuff happens at night.

its not really Canons fault you cant afford the camera they produce that best suits your needs.
you can either make do with what you can budget, or go to a photographic medium better suited to your current gear.
how exactly is the 6D's AF system "holding your back"?
are you suggesting that noone could shoot in low light before the 5dIII came out? the 5DII is a very capable low light body. perhaps it it is your technique that is lacking rather than the camera itself.

 

[kathyt]

I can't see why everyone is so bothered about noise, photography is about light if there is not enough don't take the shot, low light capability is only needed for concerts,sport, news my 5D has served me well and will do for more years to come even though i have gone back to film with 2 Leicas neither has AF and 99% of shots are in focus

I can't tell you how important it is to me to have a camera that performs well with uber, duber increased ISO. I try to avoid flash, or only use it to create an even more dramatic scene, so I rely on a higher ISO to get some of my shots during weddings that really fit with my style. I know you can correct some of the noise in PP, but I would rather not lose the detail and have a capable camera in the first place. Myself and my second shooter both shoot with the 5d mark iii's, and I told her yesterday that upgrading to that camera was the best decision I ever made as far as gear is concerned. She agreed 100%. Besides the amazing low light capabilities, the focusing system is just amazing, and really customizable to your specific needs.

 

[gsgary]

a better camera will not make you a better photographer

Exactly.

You know, I do not agree with that statement. I recently moved wayyyyyy up, from a Nikon D2x and Canon 5D pair of cameras I had for seven and five years,respectively to a Nikon D3x. The kind of pictures I can now take easily were impossible with the D2x and its chitty performance at higher ISO levels, or with the 5D with its list of issues. Single-exposure almost HDR dynamic range shots? NO problem! Autofocus on the money even with slower lenses? No problem for the D3x. SHooting surfing against the light? No more pure silhouettes with the better DR of the better camera.

Seriously; a pro-level camera improves almost everything. It makes some things that are simply NOT possible, quite easily possible. The idea that a better camera will not make one a better photographer is a cute little saying...but there's a reason, a whole list of reasons actually, why Nikon and Canon have made these high-end flagship level cameras for over a decade now.

If the camera did not matter, professionals would all be shooting crap like Nikon D40 and Canon Digital Rebel Xt bodies. But they are not, are they...

Here's a few analogies that show what a load of B.S. the "A better camera will not make you a better photographer" statement is"

"A better race car will not give you the chance to win more races." "Being stronger will not win you more shot-put competitions." "A faster computer will not allow you to process thousands of images any faster than a slow computer." "A sharper knife makes no difference when filleting fish--a dull knife is plenty good."

Sorry...cameras are tools. Better tools are..better...better tools allow a person to perform better work, faster,easier, and more often, with less hassle, and the net result is "better" work product, time after time after time.

It has not improved you as a photographer

 

[Light Guru]

a better camera will not make you a better photographer

Exactly.

You know, I do not agree with that statement. I recently moved wayyyyyy up, from a Nikon D2x and Canon 5D pair of cameras I had for seven and five years,respectively to a Nikon D3x. The kind of pictures I can now take easily were impossible with the D2x and its chitty performance at higher ISO levels, or with the 5D with its list of issues. Single-exposure almost HDR dynamic range shots? NO problem! Autofocus on the money even with slower lenses? No problem for the D3x. SHooting surfing against the light? No more pure silhouettes with the better DR of the better camera.

Seriously; a pro-level camera improves almost everything. It makes some things that are simply NOT possible, quite easily possible. The idea that a better camera will not make one a better photographer is a cute little saying...but there's a reason, a whole list of reasons actually, why Nikon and Canon have made these high-end flagship level cameras for over a decade now.

If the camera did not matter, professionals would all be shooting crap like Nikon D40 and Canon Digital Rebel Xt bodies. But there are not, are they...

The point is the person BEHIND the camera is far more important that the camera itself. Complaining that the camera makers are not selling the high end cameras at low prices does NOT help your photography.