Anyone else frustrated with Canon?

[SCraig]

There are many scenarios today where having one of the "new-sensor" cameras allows available light action shooting with no flash, at shutter speeds and f/stops that were simply UNTHINKABLE for my first 30 years in photography. When you move from a camera that is around #275 on the DxO Mark sensor performance scale to one in the Top 10, you realize that the camera actually was a HUGE, huge limitation, in many different scenarios.

What has happened is that the "new-sensor" cameras have literally MOVED the boundaries of what is now technically possible, and EASILY-shot, and which was only a DREAM even 20 years ago.

That's because, like many of us, 20 years ago you were still shooting ASA 25 or 64 Kodachrome or ASA 100 Plus X or Ilford, or maybe pushing the boundaries with ASA 400 Tri-X or Kodacolor.

People who weren't into photography decades ago honestly have no idea how good they have it today. We grew up without autofocus, without automatic exposure metering, without automatic film advance, with low ASA (ISO) film, and we had to pay for every trip of the shutter whether it was good or not. There was no "Instant Gratification" of looking at an exposure on an LCD to see if it was good and we didn't have highlights and histograms displayed on the camera backs. We either had to wait a couple of days to see if we got anything or go home and spend some time in the darkroom.

Personally I think it should be a requirement that everyone shoot film with a 70's vintage camera for a year before they are allowed to purchase a DSLR. It makes you appreciate everything about even the lowest of the low digital boxes.

 

[runnah]

Personally I think it should be a requirement that everyone shoot film with a 70's vintage camera for a year before they are allowed to purchase a DSLR. It makes you appreciate everything about even the lowest of the low digital boxes.

Bingo. Having dug up my old A1 (camera not sauce) and running some roll through it I totally appreciate modern tech, hence my stance on the matter.

 

[Overread]

Think about wildlife - if I want a sharp shot I need a 1/400sec or faster shutter speed:
I then have a limit on the aperture - it likely won't be f2.8 unless I have A LOT of money to spend. It will be f4-f8 kind of range - esp toward the higher numbers if I want a good depth of field.

So I've two hard caps - my ISO is thus very important - thus any improvement in the quality and upper limit instantly allows me to shoot in dimmer or more challenging lighting conditions and get a good shot not just a blurr or a record shot. Sure I could come back with a complex lighting setup of flash units or a fortune in f2.8 glass - but that's not always on the cards or even practical. YES you can work within limits and get great shots - we've a history of them everywhere. That doesn't mean that advance doesn't increase the potential.

 

[pixmedic]

There are many scenarios today where having one of the "new-sensor" cameras allows available light action shooting with no flash, at shutter speeds and f/stops that were simply UNTHINKABLE for my first 30 years in photography. When you move from a camera that is around #275 on the DxO Mark sensor performance scale to one in the Top 10, you realize that the camera actually was a HUGE, huge limitation, in many different scenarios.

What has happened is that the "new-sensor" cameras have literally MOVED the boundaries of what is now technically possible, and EASILY-shot, and which was only a DREAM even 20 years ago.

That's because, like many of us, 20 years ago you were still shooting ASA 25 or 64 Kodachrome or ASA 100 Plus X or Ilford, or maybe pushing the boundaries with ASA 400 Tri-X or Kodacolor.

People who weren't into photography decades ago honestly have no idea how good they have it today. We grew up without autofocus, without automatic exposure metering, without automatic film advance, with low ASA (ISO) film, and we had to pay for every trip of the shutter whether it was good or not. There was no "Instant Gratification" of looking at an exposure on an LCD to see if it was good and we didn't have highlights and histograms displayed on the camera backs. We either had to wait a couple of days to see if we got anything or go home and spend some time in the darkroom.

Personally I think it should be a requirement that everyone shoot film with a 70's vintage camera for a year before they are allowed to purchase a DSLR. It makes you appreciate everything about even the lowest of the low digital boxes.

Meh... Thats like saying you should be required to drive a manual transmission car with no power steering for a year before you can buy a new one. (ive already covered that requirement btw)
Should all film photographers have to start with plates so they appreciate roll or cartridge film? Or have to use flash powder to appreciate speedlights?

 

[runnah]

Think about wildlife - if I want a sharp shot I need a 1/400sec or faster shutter speed:
I then have a limit on the aperture - it likely won't be f2.8 unless I have A LOT of money to spend. It will be f4-f8 kind of range - esp toward the higher numbers if I want a good depth of field.

So I've two hard caps - my ISO is thus very important - thus any improvement in the quality and upper limit instantly allows me to shoot in dimmer or more challenging lighting conditions and get a good shot not just a blurr or a record shot. Sure I could come back with a complex lighting setup of flash units or a fortune in f2.8 glass - but that's not always on the cards or even practical. YES you can work within limits and get great shots - we've a history of them everywhere. That doesn't mean that advance doesn't increase the potential.

But are you really going to utilize the far ends of the spectrum which are the battlegrounds for the tech spec battle?

 

[gsgary]

There are many scenarios today where having one of the "new-sensor" cameras allows available light action shooting with no flash, at shutter speeds and f/stops that were simply UNTHINKABLE for my first 30 years in photography. When you move from a camera that is around #275 on the DxO Mark sensor performance scale to one in the Top 10, you realize that the camera actually was a HUGE, huge limitation, in many different scenarios.

What has happened is that the "new-sensor" cameras have literally MOVED the boundaries of what is now technically possible, and EASILY-shot, and which was only a DREAM even 20 years ago.

That's because, like many of us, 20 years ago you were still shooting ASA 25 or 64 Kodachrome or ASA 100 Plus X or Ilford, or maybe pushing the boundaries with ASA 400 Tri-X or Kodacolor.

People who weren't into photography decades ago honestly have no idea how good they have it today. We grew up without autofocus, without automatic exposure metering, without automatic film advance, with low ASA (ISO) film, and we had to pay for every trip of the shutter whether it was good or not. There was no "Instant Gratification" of looking at an exposure on an LCD to see if it was good and we didn't have highlights and histograms displayed on the camera backs. We either had to wait a couple of days to see if we got anything or go home and spend some time in the darkroom.

Personally I think it should be a requirement that everyone shoot film with a 70's vintage camera for a year before they are allowed to purchase a DSLR. It makes you appreciate everything about even the lowest of the low digital boxes.

Meh... Thats like saying you should be required to drive a manual transmission car with no power steering for a year before you can buy a new one. (ive already covered that requirement btw)
Should all film photographers have to start with plates so they appreciate roll or cartridge film? Or have to use flash powder to appreciate speedlights?

If you pass your driving test in an automatic car you cannot drive a manual car legally on the roads of the UK

 

[runnah]

If you pass your driving test in an automatic car you cannot drive a manual car legally on the roads of the UK

I think everyone should be able to drive every type of vehicle they can get their hands on. I'd hate to be in an emergency situation and only have a manual car and not be able to drive it.

 

[Overread]

Think about wildlife - if I want a sharp shot I need a 1/400sec or faster shutter speed:
I then have a limit on the aperture - it likely won't be f2.8 unless I have A LOT of money to spend. It will be f4-f8 kind of range - esp toward the higher numbers if I want a good depth of field.

So I've two hard caps - my ISO is thus very important - thus any improvement in the quality and upper limit instantly allows me to shoot in dimmer or more challenging lighting conditions and get a good shot not just a blurr or a record shot. Sure I could come back with a complex lighting setup of flash units or a fortune in f2.8 glass - but that's not always on the cards or even practical. YES you can work within limits and get great shots - we've a history of them everywhere. That doesn't mean that advance doesn't increase the potential.

But are you really going to utilize the far ends of the spectrum which are the battlegrounds for the tech spec battle?

Yes yes I likely will - I just can't afford that end of the spectrum to take part in it. However that end of the tech war is still important because one day the features will slowly filter down to a price level I can afford or can save up to more easily. I can certainly agree, someone who takes portraits of people or similar subjects might well reach a point where the tech advance is no longer important or as important to them - that's perfectly and utterly fine and I won't argue against it at all.

 

[pixmedic]

That's because, like many of us, 20 years ago you were still shooting ASA 25 or 64 Kodachrome or ASA 100 Plus X or Ilford, or maybe pushing the boundaries with ASA 400 Tri-X or Kodacolor.

People who weren't into photography decades ago honestly have no idea how good they have it today. We grew up without autofocus, without automatic exposure metering, without automatic film advance, with low ASA (ISO) film, and we had to pay for every trip of the shutter whether it was good or not. There was no "Instant Gratification" of looking at an exposure on an LCD to see if it was good and we didn't have highlights and histograms displayed on the camera backs. We either had to wait a couple of days to see if we got anything or go home and spend some time in the darkroom.

Personally I think it should be a requirement that everyone shoot film with a 70's vintage camera for a year before they are allowed to purchase a DSLR. It makes you appreciate everything about even the lowest of the low digital boxes.

Meh... Thats like saying you should be required to drive a manual transmission car with no power steering for a year before you can buy a new one. (ive already covered that requirement btw)
Should all film photographers have to start with plates so they appreciate roll or cartridge film? Or have to use flash powder to appreciate speedlights?

If you pass your driving test in an automatic car you cannot drive a manual car legally on the roads of the UK

seriously? thats awesome. should be like that here in the U.S.

 

[kathyt]

Better gear also reduces the working limitations present on a photographer by the gear itself.

I am waffling on this one. While yes that is technically true, I also think its a bit of a cop out.

I think in a way its not making the user work/think hard enough to get the desired result. I mean I am racking my brain to try to come up with a scenarios where I could not overcome technical limitations by thinking outside the box or just using what I do have to my advantage.

Come shoot a wedding with me and I will show you. I could and am able to think outside the box, but when I am in time constraints, when I could do the job 10x's faster, and more cost effectively, why would I?

 

[SCraig]

Should all film photographers have to start with plates so they appreciate roll or cartridge film? Or have to use flash powder to appreciate speedlights?

Not necessary. Going back to the 60's is plenty far enough. Unless having done that they still think ISO 800 and 1600 are not fast enough. I promise you, after shooting ASA 25 for a while, even a short while, you CAN find enough light with ISO 1600.

 

[gsgary]

Better gear also reduces the working limitations present on a photographer by the gear itself.

I am waffling on this one. While yes that is technically true, I also think its a bit of a cop out.

I think in a way its not making the user work/think hard enough to get the desired result. I mean I am racking my brain to try to come up with a scenarios where I could not overcome technical limitations by thinking outside the box or just using what I do have to my advantage.

Come shoot a wedding with me and I will show you. I could and am able to think outside the box, but when I am in time constraints, when I could do the job 10x's faster, and more cost effectively, why would I?

Ill shoot film, delta 3200, you can't shoot a wedding any fast than event proceeds

 

[runnah]

Come shoot a wedding with me and I will show you. I could and am able to think outside the box, but when I am in time constraints, when I could do the job 10x's faster, and more cost effectively, why would I?

Do you feel your end result suffer? Could you use some examples?

 

[TCampbell]

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

I'm confused by your assessment of the 6D focusing system... your message implies it is somehow a "poor" system, especially as you relate it to the D600 as if it's somehow a "better" system.

Two things:

The 6D has a central cross-type focus point. The D600 has 9. That sounds like a score for the D600... UNTIL you look at the layout. For example... on a 7D, 60D, or even a T4i/T5i (basically the T4i "a" and "b" version since nobody can figure out what's different on a T5i beyond the mode dial, but that's another thread) you get a focusing system in which all the focus points are cross-type but they're also spread around the viewfinder. But that's not true of the D600... all the cross-type points are concentrated in the very center.

The "general" complaint about only having a single cross-type focus point in the center is that you have to do a focus & recompose if you don't trust the single axis focus points spread around the rest of the viewfinder. But this doesn't help the D600... since all of it's 9 cross-type points are tightly clustered in the center anyway... you still have to do a focus & recompose method if you want to use cross-type focusing.

Next... is the sensitivity of the focus points. Nikon's D600 cross-type AF points are rated to -1 EV according to Nikon specs. Canon's 6D cross-type AF point is rated to -3 EV according to Canon specs. I did run across a blog post where someone tested the two. When it gets dark enough, the D600 focus system fails to lock focus -- but the 6D system still works.

From the perspective of these two points, the 6D's focus system is actually better than the D600.

Sure, the 6D system isn't the fantastic focus system of the flagship 1D-X or the 5D III, but it's a pretty good system considering the substantially cost savings for the 6D body.

 

[Derrel]

Again, TCampbell lends some sane perspective to a (somewhat) complicated issue; I think the OP is being a bit unfair to the 6D. Sure, it *is* a bit stripped-down in some areas, but I have seen video and stills from it...the sensor's quality is very good!!! The video it shoots even in bad light--looks very good! If you want a built-in flash and built-in wireless remote flash commander capabilities, then the D600 from Nikon is for you.

I think the people who ought to be disillusioned with Canon are the APS-C shooters; Canon has been 'stuck' on the same 18 megapixel, .5 micron process APS-C sensor since 2009. They have terribly neglected the APS-C cameras for several generations now. The 6D has an all-new 20.2 MP full-frame sensor; the pictures it makes look GOOD!