login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > More Canon 46MB camera rumors. Search   Reply
first45678last
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 9,990
Baltimore, Maryland, US


moving pictures wrote:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/46-1 … -2012-cr1/

The moment this camera is officially announced, the last nail is drilled into Hassey's coffin.

If it costs the rumored $9000, it will be a big coffin nail indeed, but it wont be Hassy suffering.

http://www.photographybay.com/2012/10/0 … p-9k-dslr/

Oct 06 12 01:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 26,750
Dearborn, Michigan, US


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:

Oh, no no.  I think Canon is doing something.  They are thinking on how to milk more money out of consumer by giving small incremental upgrades.  Plus, Canon been busy chasing RED.

  Again, I am hoping the new president is more innovate the previous one.

  I do want Canon to come out with a 46MP camera but not with the current sensor they been using.  I am hoping it would be a new sensor technology that is better than Sony's Exmor sensor.

Canon has been in video for many years with great equipment.  They were the first to put video on their 5DII DSLR.

Oct 06 12 04:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gil Rivera
Posts: 551
New York, New York, US


IMHO, This should have been the Mark III. I just hope to price tag is not too high.
Oct 06 12 05:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ruben Vasquez
Posts: 3,088
Puyallup, Washington, US


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:

They better be nice and awesome for that price.. smile

  It would be great if they could also incorporate AF onto the lens.

Canon's latest generation of lenses have been getting great reviews thus far and I'd imagine they could handle 30+mp just fine. They're usually around $2,000 just like the Zeiss are likely to start at, but they also have auto focus as well as image stabilisation. About the only thing Canon lacks (in comparison), is the name...

Oct 06 12 05:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,311
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


Ruben Vasquez wrote:

Canon's latest generation of lenses have been getting great reviews thus far and I'd imagine they could handle 30+mp just fine. They're usually around $2,000 just like the Zeiss are likely to start at, but they also have auto focus as well as image stabilisation. About the only thing Canon lacks (in comparison), is the name...

You kidding right? Canon's wide angle lenses still suck (except few of the TSE).
The Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II is a great lens but it isn't worth the asking price.  It can't even beat the five years old 24-70mm f2.8G but yet, Canon asking more money.

  The Canon's 28mm f2.8 IS is way way over price and the sharpness is also suck.

I do like the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II.  That is awesome lens.

Oct 07 12 06:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,311
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Canon has been in video for many years with great equipment.  They were the first to put video on their 5DII DSLR.

Wrong.  Nikon D90 was the first ever to have video on DSLR.  Canon saw the chance and put video on 5DII and offer 1080p which D90 lacks.

Oct 07 12 06:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 26,750
Dearborn, Michigan, US


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
Wrong.  Nikon D90 was the first ever to have video on DSLR.  Canon saw the chance and put video on 5DII and offer 1080p which D90 lacks.

You are right but the Canon 5D MkII completely eclipsed this.  Nikon used Motion jpeg, the same as the point and shoot cameras.  The Canon video output was Quicktime 1080p H.264; 38.6 Mbits/sec which was a professional video output.

Oct 07 12 07:05 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 9,990
Baltimore, Maryland, US


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:

Wrong.  Nikon D90 was the first ever to have video on DSLR.  Canon saw the chance and put video on 5DII and offer 1080p which D90 lacks.

Ok, but Canon was the first to use translucent mirror technology, long before Sony made it standard on their SLTs.

Oct 08 12 08:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
moving pictures
Posts: 661
Los Angeles, California, US


Even more....

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/big- … -talk-cr2/

"It’s coming, just not as soon as you’d like"
Oct 08 12 05:34 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 9,990
Baltimore, Maryland, US


moving pictures wrote:
Even more....

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/big- … -talk-cr2/

"It’s coming, just not as soon as you’d like"

That would be too bad. Canon really does need to do something to show that it still has some love for still photographers.

Oct 08 12 05:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sichenze Photography
Posts: 269
Front Royal, Virginia, US


PTFPhoto wrote:

Have you ever shot a D800? 

Because I can tell you right now, the D800's ISO performance *WHEN PRINTED OR DELIVERED TO THE SAME SIZE* is as good as or up to a stop better than my D3s. And the D4 does not better the D3s for ISO.  The D800 will absolutely STOMP the D700/D3 in ISO performance.

You are spot on... I love my D800 and I have a D4 and it is very good as well but the D800 is a killer.

Oct 08 12 06:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio
Posts: 9,158
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


moving pictures wrote:
Even more....

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/big- … -talk-cr2/

"It’s coming, just not as soon as you’d like"

You forgot the whole quote:

"A couple of known sources have finally popped up to talk about all the high megapixel rumors floating around this site and others. While most of what we’ve posted has been [CR1], there still seems to be a level of truth to it. However, I’m told that IF there is an announcement in 2012 for a high megapixel camera, it would only be a development announcement. There is nothing in the way of marketing or production for the rumoured camera. "


  So now it is saying if it does announce, it would be a development announcement?  Does this means it still in design/development phase?

Oct 08 12 06:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Anzhelika Yakimenko
Posts: 540
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, US


Canon(as much as I like them-and Im a Canon girl) can build a 1000mb camera if they like.  Its not going to affect business in any way at Hasselblad or Leica or Mamiya either one.  I promise.
Oct 08 12 06:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,311
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


Anzhelika Yakimenko wrote:
Canon(as much as I like them-and Im a Canon girl) can build a 1000mb camera if they like.  Its not going to affect business in any way at Hasselblad or Leica or Mamiya either one.  I promise.

You should see the reasoning from Leica and Hasselblad manager/represenative said regarding the D800. smile .  They sound nervous..


Imagine if the 46MP Canon has the quality of the D800's Sensor IQ..  I wonder what Leica or Hasselblad would say..  But of course only if Canon can bring the price below 4K.

Oct 08 12 06:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,464
San Diego, California, US


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:

You should see the reasoning from Leica and Hasselblad manager/represenative said regarding the D800. smile .  They sound nervous..


Imagine if the 46MP Canon has the quality of the D800's Sensor IQ..  I wonder what Leica or Hasselblad would say..  But of course only if Canon can bring the price below 4K.

It's not so much a matter of if Canon can bring the price below 4K but rather if they choose to. Canon, like every other camera manufacturer, makes their highest profit margin on their high end equipment. Canon will price this camera where they think they can sell it at the most profit.

Oct 08 12 06:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,311
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


Instinct Images wrote:
It's not so much a matter of if Canon can bring the price below 4K but rather if they choose to. Canon, like every other camera manufacturer, makes their highest profit margin on their high end equipment. Canon will price this camera where they think they can sell it at the most profit.

You are too proud of Canon.  Supply and Demand will dictate what the camera/equipment is worth.  High end equipment does not translate into more profitable overall.  Maybe profitable per unit sold (assuming that they sell enough to even out first) but that does not translate into profit per volume.


Example is Steinway piano:

Steinway make expansive concert piano but they hardly making any profit from them.  The most money maker for Steinway has been lower end models (upright type) because they sell more.

  For me, Canon's new Camera/lenses are over priced as compared to the competition (which offer better IQ, better features and better technologies).  Canon at some point will have to response and by then, the competition will also response with something better than today's.

Oct 08 12 07:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,464
San Diego, California, US


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:

You are too proud of Canon.  Supply and Demand will dictate what the camera/equipment is worth.  High end equipment does not translate into more profitable overall.  Maybe profitable per unit sold (assuming that they sell enough to even out first) but that does not translate into profit per volume.


Example is Steinway piano:

Steinway make expansive concert piano but they hardly making any profit from them.  The most money maker for Steinway has been lower end models (upright type) because they sell more.

  For me, Canon's new Camera/lenses are over priced as compared to the competition (which offer better IQ, better features and better technologies).  Canon at some point will have to response and by then, the competition will also response with something better than today's.

Too proud of Canon? No, you're just blinded by either your love of Nikon or hatred of Canon - or maybe a mix of both.

Camera pricing isn't about supply and demand. It's about pricing what the market will bear. Pricing for the 1Ds models have shown that pros will buy expensive cameras IF there is a need. Doesn't matter if it's Nikon or Canon.

But of course you completely missed my point. Canon CAN sell their new high megapixel camera for $4K or less if they wanted to and still make a profit. They will price the camera at a point where they can maximize their profits and not cut into sales of other models. It's what EVERY company does. DUH

Oct 08 12 11:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PTFPhoto
Posts: 117
Tallahassee, Florida, US


Jerry Nemeth wrote:

You are right but the Canon 5D MkII completely eclipsed this.  Nikon used Motion jpeg, the same as the point and shoot cameras.  The Canon video output was Quicktime 1080p H.264; 38.6 Mbits/sec which was a professional video output.

I don't have any wish to jump into this fray, but let's be clear on something.

1.  Motion-Jpeg as a codec is just fine.  Nikon's implementation of it was very poor.

2.  Canon's implementation of H.264 in the 5D2 was NOT professional level anything.  It was the best available on a DSLR, and people worked with it.  As I remember it, the 7D offered a better bit-rate, but people wanted the ultra-shallow DOF of the 5D2.

3.  To date, NO DSLR offers a pro level codec recorded in camera.

4.  To date, the only shipping DSLRs to offer clean HDMI out are Nikons.  Sony might, but I am not familiar enough with their DSLRs to be certain of that.

And before you jump in to tell me that the codec in that Canon is pro level, I will tell you that I shoot for both broadcast and film, and can give you quotes from numerous pro level DPs including from Rodney Charters (shot the show "24", to Shane Hurlbut who shot Act of Valor on mostly 5D2's) saying the same thing.  The codec was not good enough for pro use.  In their use and mine, we converted that codec to either ProRes, DNxHD, or something similar to do post.  If not, it totally fell apart.

Thanks.

Oct 08 12 11:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
moving pictures
Posts: 661
Los Angeles, California, US


Instinct Images wrote:
They will price the camera at a point where they can maximize their profits and not cut into sales of other models. It's what EVERY company does. DUH

The DUH is on you.  Some companies make top of the line products that they actually loose money on, but the existence of the product brings prestiges to the brand and drives sales of lower cost items.

Oct 09 12 12:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,464
San Diego, California, US


moving pictures wrote:
The DUH is on you.  Some companies make top of the line products that they actually loose money on, but the existence of the product brings prestiges to the brand and drives sales of lower cost items.

Can you provide some examples? Perferably from manufacturers of cameras such as Nikon, Sony, etc. or at least something similar.

After all, we're not talking about something that a companies makes in extremely limited quantities or that costs a million dollars.

Oct 09 12 01:17 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 4,799
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom


Robb Mann wrote:

Ok, but Canon was the first to use translucent mirror technology, long before Sony made it standard on their SLTs.

True that they made a '1 series' film camera translucent mirror to give a very high frame rate but they were in use long before that. My little Olympus XA used one in its rangefinder focusing and others did before that. What Canon did do with mirrors is produce cameras with the 'wrong glue' being used such that the mirror fell off after a while ( 5D Mk? ) and another ( 1DMk3 ? ) where the cameras had to be returned for a new mirror box so that the camera was able to get a reasonable focus.

The reality is that it is companies like Olympus and Minolta who have done much of the innovation as opposed to just improving. For example Minolta had the first infra-red control of flash, before Nikon and LONG before Canon. Olympus introduced High speed sync in film days. even Hasselblad have some innovation as in their gyro to adjust the focus distance when using 'focus and recompose'.

Oct 09 12 01:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 4,799
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom


moving pictures wrote:
The DUH is on you.  Some companies make top of the line products that they actually loose money on, but the existence of the product brings prestiges to the brand and drives sales of lower cost items.

+1

Instinct Images wrote:
Can you provide some examples? Perferably from manufacturers of cameras such as Nikon, Sony, etc. or at least something similar.

After all, we're not talking about something that a companies makes in extremely limited quantities or that costs a million dollars.

Quick few, plenty more exist.
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chroni … /index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_New_ … l_Editions
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/07/25/fast … ash-drive/

Oct 09 12 01:37 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,464
San Diego, California, US


photoimager wrote:

moving pictures wrote:
The DUH is on you.  Some companies make top of the line products that they actually loose money on, but the existence of the product brings prestiges to the brand and drives sales of lower cost items.

+1


Quick few, plenty more exist.
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chroni … /index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_New_ … l_Editions
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/07/25/fast … ash-drive/

Where in your link does it say the companies lost money on those?

Oct 09 12 02:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 4,799
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom


Instinct Images wrote:
Where in your link does it say the companies lost money on those?

No need to do so even if it existed. The point is they are products that raised the manufacturer's profile even though they were not for 'mainstream'.

The classic 'low cost' loss-leader of a product is the original New Order Blue Monday 12". It cost Factory more to make than they were selling it for.

Oct 09 12 02:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,464
San Diego, California, US


photoimager wrote:

No need to do so even if it existed. The point is they are products that raised the manufacturer's profile even though they were not for 'mainstream'.

The classic 'low cost' loss-leader of a product is the original New Order Blue Monday 12". It cost Factory more to make than they were selling it for.

What "moving pictures" said was "Some companies make top of the line products that they actually loose money on" so unless your examples lost money then it doesn't matter.

FWIW the Nikon cameras you linked to weren't "top of the line products" they were simply reproductions of earlier models. I don't making them brought "prestige" to Nikon. More likely they were made specifically for collectors.

Not at all like the new Canon model this thread it about.

Oct 09 12 02:40 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,713
Manchester, England, United Kingdom


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
The Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II is a great lens but it isn't worth the asking price.  It can't even beat the five years old 24-70mm f2.8G but yet, Canon asking more money.

These two lenses? I don't know the Nikon line well so sorry if I've picked the wrong one up.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi … &APIComp=0

If it is, I'd say the difference was night and day. The Nikon has terrible CA at the edges, especially wide, and is quite blurry mid to edge of the frame.

The Canon isn't perfect, but it's way better overall to my eyes. I struggled to find aperture and length combinations where the Nikon won or at least won convincingly.... or am I missing something?

Yes it's expensive, but lenses always are when they're first released. It'll drop "£500-£1000" in the next year or so. I think some of the first ones off the line have some QA problems, but we all know as early adopters of any kit you risk this. Quote from the digital picture:

"Sharpness and contrast used to be an advantage held by most primes, but ... the sharpness and contrast difference between the 24-70 L II and the primes falling into this range is much harder to discern. The differences are probably not significant for most. The versatility of having the range of focal lengths in the mounted lens is often preferred."

Oct 09 12 02:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,311
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


Instinct Images wrote:
Too proud of Canon? No, you're just blinded by either your love of Nikon or hatred of Canon - or maybe a mix of both.

Camera pricing isn't about supply and demand. It's about pricing what the market will bear. Pricing for the 1Ds llamas have shown that pros will buy expensive cameras IF there is a need. Doesn't matter if it's Nikon or Canon.

But of course you completely missed my point. Canon CAN sell their new high megapixel camera for $4K or less if they wanted to and still make a profit. They will price the camera at a point where they can maximize their profits and not cut into sales of other llamas. It's what EVERY company does. DUH

I am not sure how I am blind by Canon or hatred toward Canon.  The competitor does offer more for less money.  To me, Canon hasn't come out with a better sensor then competitor in 5 years but yet, the price has been jacked up.

  Canon is a big company and they also have big overheads.  Which means for them to produce X product, they need to add the cost of heavy overhead (Executives, Directors, Project managers, R

Oct 09 12 03:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,311
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


Phil Drinkwater wrote:
These two lenses? I don't know the Nikon line well so sorry if I've picked the wrong one up.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi … &APIComp=0

If it is, I'd say the difference was night and day. The Nikon has terrible CA at the edges, especially wide, and is quite blurry mid to edge of the frame.

The Canon isn't perfect, but it's way better overall to my eyes. I struggled to find aperture and length combinations where the Nikon won or at least won convincingly.... or am I missing something?

Yes it's expensive, but lenses always are when they're first released. It'll drop "£500-£1000" in the next year or so. I think some of the first ones off the line have some QA problems, but we all know as early adopters of any kit you risk this. Quote from the digital picture:

"Sharpness and contrast used to be an advantage held by most primes, but ... the sharpness and contrast difference between the 24-70 L II and the primes falling into this range is much harder to discern. The differences are probably not significant for most. The versatility of having the range of focal lengths in the mounted lens is often preferred."

For wide open, yes but if you step down a little and you will see.  If the price drop, that means supply and demand comes in play.  If more people willing to pay for an item, the price either 1.  The price will not drop or 2. The price will be higher.

Phil, I think Canon's marketing department is testing the water with the consumers.  They want to put the price out there and see how many people willing to pay.  They put higher price tag out there first and see if the demand meets their quota and if not, they willing to lower the price to meet their quota.  The issue I see doing is way is that it will create a negative perception with the consumer.

Oct 09 12 03:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,713
Manchester, England, United Kingdom


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
For wide open, yes but if you step down a little and you will see.

The lens is massively better wide open, around the same at f4 and mostly better at wide angles throughout the range.

I just don't think your original statement is fair to the lens. As noted earlier, I'm not fussed about the areas that Canon still need to work on and I will happily quote them myself ... but be fair ...

Oct 09 12 07:27 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LaurensAntoine 4 FHM
Posts: 333
San Diego, California, US


Teila K Day Photography wrote:

MF is my absolute favorite format and has been since before people had DSLRs, and though I know what you mean, it isn't necessarily "vastly" different when you look at the final product... though it *can be* at times due to the size of the format/sensor. 

1.  The image from Hassy/Phase/Leaf/Sinar backs are also different... which is "better" is a matter of preference don't you agree?

2.  I'd rather *have* a D800 (with 3 or 4 premium lenses) over the 31mp Hassy, and I think that most clients looking at resulting prints would agree that the difference isn't worth the price spread with the 31mp back.  D800e offers much better ROI for general portraiture.  However I'd rather *shoot* the Hassy!

3.  Furthermore, I would say that most photographers used to shooting MF would agree that (especially today) that a **31mp** Hasselblad will generally prove a financially wasteful rental (compared to a D800e) even considering the advantages of the larger sensor and faster sync, and an unwise business purchase compared to a Mamiya/Phase purchase of a like product.

I'd rather be behind the MF body, however I don't have blinders on about the real world cost vs. performance aspect, and the writing is on the wall-  MF companies better get their game on with something other than the lackluster improvements that typically take place or else the lower tier bodies/backs will be gutted by high resolution Canon/Nikon offerings in the future.

I would not consider buying a 31mp MF (Hassy especially given less expansion options) today at the current prices, however I would buy, and I do think that higher resolution MF with leaf shutter offerings are currently viable products.

I think that if I could only have one, it would have to be an advanced 35mm. There are many things the current MF cameras cannot do, nor are they anywhere near as reliable.

However, the bigger sensors do give you a look that you can't replicate with 35mm. And the lenses aren't comparable.

Fred: You made two comments. I"m not sure I agree with the comparison made with the two images. If you crop within the sweet spot, there isn't going to be much difference if the resolution is similar.

Your point about Zeiss lenses is important and may be a game changer if they perform better then the Schneider and Fuji lenses that give Mamiya and Hassy the edge. Especially if they can resolve well at very fast speeds. If they do, then the DOF advantage may go away. 

As lenses and sensors continue to progress, I'd be surprised if MF remains viable much longer. But right now, at 100 ISO and no need for speed, they continue to provide something I don't get from any 35mm setup.

Oct 09 12 09:10 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
You are too proud of Canon.  Supply and Demand will dictate what the camera/equipment is worth.  High end equipment does not translate into more profitable overall.  Maybe profitable per unit sold (assuming that they sell enough to even out first) but that does not translate into profit per volume.


Example is Steinway piano:

Steinway make expansive concert piano but they hardly making any profit from them.  The most money maker for Steinway has been lower end models (upright type) because they sell more.

  For me, Canon's new Camera/lenses are over priced as compared to the competition (which offer better IQ, better features and better technologies).  Canon at some point will have to response and by then, the competition will also response with something better than today's.

And you've been Nikon Fanboying the entire thread. Canon is overpriced and inferior quality. Nikon is spectacular and THEY are making Hassy and the other MF manufacturers quake in their boots.

We get it.

Oct 09 12 09:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,311
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


Michael Pandolfo wrote:
And you've been Nikon Fanboying the entire thread. Canon is overpriced and inferior quality. Nikon is spectacular and THEY are making Hassy and the other MF manufacturers quake in their boots.

We get it.

Currently I do like Nikon and its offering more than Canon and my Canon 5DII and other L lenses have been in shelf most of the time these after I got the D800.   You don't see Canon as being over price as compare to the competition but I do. 

But anyone who is Canon fanboy will never get it as no matter what, Canon is always better.

  For me, until Canon answer the DR and higher MP camera for a very competitive price, then I will visit Canon camera again.  For now, I am happy with the D800.

  Being a fanboy is never a good thing.

Oct 09 12 09:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,311
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


Phil Drinkwater wrote:
The lens is massively better wide open, around the same at f4 and mostly better at wide angles throughout the range.

I just don't think your original statement is fair to the lens. As noted earlier, I'm not fussed about the areas that Canon still need to work on and I will happily quote them myself ... but be fair ...

You are right.  I might be harsh on Canon regarding the 24-70mm f2.8L II.  Photozone.de tested the 24-70mm f2.8L II and base on the data, there are things that the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II is better than the Nikon but there are also things that Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G is better.  The Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G is 5 years old and I would expect Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II to be massively better than the 5 years old Nikkor as the Canon is more expensive.  That way, Nikon would have to answer and upgrade its 24-70mm f2.8G.

Oct 09 12 10:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,713
Manchester, England, United Kingdom


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
Currently I do like Nikon and its offering more than Canon and my Canon 5DII and other L lenses has been in shelf most of the time these after I got the D800.   You don't see Canon as being over price as compare to the competition but I do.

But anyone who is Canon fanboy will never get it as no matter what, Canon is always better.

  For me, until Canon answer the DR and higher MP camera for a very competitive price, then I will visit Canon camera again.  For now, I am happy with the D800.

  Being a fanboy is never a good thing.

I think it's also important to realise that your view is only *your view* of the world.

My current work is mainly weddings (I love them) and high DR is simply not an issue, nor is MP. The 5d3 feature set - when you take price, lens availability etc.. and all features into account - is better than any other camera for weddings full stop IMHO. I have the incredible primes. I have silent shutter. I have 6fps and plenty of resolution. I have fantastic handling (which I hear is not do great in a d800). I don't use flash much so the fact that the Nikon flash system is reportedly better is irrelevant.

In fact, one of my Nikon friends is currently selling all of his gear since he loves my Canon stuff so much. He's raved about his new 1dx and is disappointed in equal measure with the d4. I told him not to, but he is doing. He's not the only one to do this.

There is a mass of photography that happens outside of this relatively small part of the industry. Maybe Canon is prioritising them? Modelling work and landscape work is definitely Nikons territory this time, as it was Canons last time. But fundamentally it's not that Canon has lost ground to Nikon **it's that Canon and Nikon have switched places**. Nikon is now modelling and landscapes and Canon is now sports and social.

You seem to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a Canon fanboy. Maybe they just have a different view and different needs and, actually, the difficulty here is that you just can't see that?

I'm not being nasty, but honestly it is starting to seem that way smile

Oct 09 12 10:10 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,713
Manchester, England, United Kingdom


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:

You are right.  I might be harsh on Canon regarding the 24-70mm f2.8L II.  Photozone.de tested the 24-70mm f2.8L II and base on the data, there are things that the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II is better than the Nikon but there are also things that Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G is better.  The Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G is 5 years old and I would expect Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II to be massively better than the 5 years old Nikkor as the Canon is more expensive.  That way, Nikon would have to answer and upgrade its 24-70mm f2.8G.

Canon have done an amazing thing: they've produced a zoom which is as sharp wide open as many primes in that range. That lens is also *nearly* as sharp as the Nikon at f8. And doesn't have all of the CA.

Personally I'd say that deserves a round of applause, but our perspectives might be different on this point smile

Oct 09 12 10:19 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,311
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


Phil Drinkwater wrote:
I think it's also important to realise that your view is only *your view* of the world.

My current work is mainly weddings (I love them) and high DR is simply not an issue, nor is MP. The 5d3 feature set - when you take price, lens availability etc.. and all features into account - is better than any other camera for weddings full stop IMHO. I have the incredible primes. I have silent shutter. I have 6fps and plenty of resolution. I have fantastic handling (which I hear is not do great in a d800). I don't use flash much so the fact that the Nikon flash system is reportedly better is irrelevant.

In fact, one of my Nikon friends is currently selling all of his gear since he loves my Canon stuff so much. He's raved about his new 1dx and is disappointed in equal measure with the d4. I told him not to, but he is doing. He's not the only one to do this.

There is a mass of photography that happens outside of this relatively small part of the industry. Maybe Canon is prioritising them? Modelling work and landscape work is definitely Nikons territory this time, as it was Canons last time. But fundamentally it's not that Canon has lost ground to Nikon **it's that Canon and Nikon have switched places**. Nikon is now modelling and landscapes and Canon is now sports and social.

You seem to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a Canon fanboy. Maybe they just have a different view and different needs and, actually, the difficulty here is that you just can't see that?

I'm not being nasty, but honestly it is starting to see that way smile

Very true.  It is only my view and others might feel differently.  And I have stated that many times.  I see currently Nikon is better than Canon as it offer more for less money. 

The best way for anyone to know which is better/prefer is to have many systems.  This includes having Canon and Nikon and then weight to see which is better and which fit his/her need.

  Back to the 5DIII/D800.  For me, the 5DIII does feels a little better in the hand.  But the D800 feel more complete to me in my hand.  By that, I mean the buttons, layout and the functions that I control and need are very intuitive.  I really enjoy shooting the D800 more than the 5DIII.  I borrowed the 5DIII from a friend for a day and I he borrowed my D800. 

  The DR and the resolution of the D800 is simply amazing.  Much better than any of the DSLR I have ever used.

  The D3/D3s/D4 took a lot of sports photographers from Canon.  Canon EOS used to own sports but that got changed.

Oct 09 12 10:21 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio - OtherSide
Posts: 5,311
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


Phil Drinkwater wrote:
Canon have done an amazing thing: they've produced a zoom which is as sharp wide open as many primes in that range. That lens is also *nearly* as sharp as the Nikon at f8. And doesn't have all of the CA.

Personally I'd say that deserves a round of applause, but our perspectives might be different on this point smile

I expect more for the price they are asking.  But that is just me.. smile

Oct 09 12 10:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PTFPhoto
Posts: 117
Tallahassee, Florida, US


Phil Drinkwater wrote:
My current work is mainly weddings (I love them) and high DR is simply not an issue, nor is MP. The 5d3 feature set - when you take price, lens availability etc.. and all features into account - is better than any other camera for weddings full stop IMHO. I have the incredible primes. I have silent shutter. I have 6fps and plenty of resolution. I have fantastic handling (which I hear is not do great in a d800). I don't use flash much so the fact that the Nikon flash system is reportedly better is irrelevant.

This is interesting.  I do not shoot weddings, but have many friends who do.  All seemed to say DR was important, particularly when trying to balance the bride's white dress with the grooms customary dark suit, and especially outside in sunlight.  But as you say, perhaps your needs are different.  The 5D3 is certainly a wonderful offering.  I think the primes from both companies are quite nice, and for posed work, or basic candid work, I've found that nearly anything over 3-4 fps is plenty.  I don't know who told you the D800 doesn't handle well, but I think it's pretty fantastic.  And frankly given the market response to the camera, I'd have to say MANY other people find it so as well.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
In fact, one of my Nikon friends is currently selling all of his gear since he loves my Canon stuff so much. He's raved about his new 1dx and is disappointed in equal measure with the d4. I told him not to, but he is doing. He's not the only one to do this.

The 1Dx is a spectacular camera from all I've heard.  I chose not to upgrade my pair of D3s to the D4 because I didn't feel it offered me anything I needed.  But for those shooting at the very pointy end of the sports market, the Cat5 connection and the VERY deep buffer are HUGE upgrades.

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
There is a mass of photography that happens outside of this relatively small part of the industry. Maybe Canon is prioritising them? Modelling work and landscape work is definitely Nikons territory this time, as it was Canons last time. But fundamentally it's not that Canon has lost ground to Nikon **it's that Canon and Nikon have switched places**. Nikon is now modelling and landscapes and Canon is now sports and social.

I'd give social to Canon, but not so sure about sports.  Until I see the new cameras do what the D3s and D4 are doing, I'll reserve judgement. 

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
You seem to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a Canon fanboy. Maybe they just have a different view and different needs and, actually, the difficulty here is that you just can't see that?

This is always the tough thing about the forums.  Those of us who own and shoot both systems tend to have a perspective that owners of only one system don't.  I picked up the 5D3 last week in the store as a potential buy.  It still feels wrong in my hands.  The Canon's all feel "small" to me.  But I have huge hands.  This has always been the case for me though.  Even when I was shooting pro film bodies, I preferred my F4s to the top Canon's.  I put down the 5D3 and bought a D600 that day instead.

Oct 09 12 10:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
curiosa des yeux
Posts: 1,457
Seattle, Washington, US


Wasn't the 1ds Mk3 around $8500 when it first came out? $9000 just sounds like the replacement for the 1ds series and isn't far off from where it's always been priced. They didn't have trouble selling them at 22mp, so I don't suspect it will be hard at 46mp.
Oct 09 12 11:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 22,464
San Diego, California, US


ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:

Currently I do like Nikon and its offering more than Canon and my Canon 5DII and other L lenses have been in shelf most of the time these after I got the D800.   You don't see Canon as being over price as compare to the competition but I do. 

But anyone who is Canon fanboy will never get it as no matter what, Canon is always better.

  For me, until Canon answer the DR and higher MP camera for a very competitive price, then I will visit Canon camera again.  For now, I am happy with the D800.

  Being a fanboy is never a good thing.

You don't get it. Most of us talking about Canon haven't said "they are better". Only you keep saying the Nikon sensor is better. I don't care if the Nikon sensor is better if the one from Canon does what I need. That's all that matters to me. Obviously some people have switched from Canon to Nikon because of the D800. Nikon is making some GREAT cameras. But at the same time I know several people that are extremely happy with their 5D Mark III bodies and they don't complain about the sensor. Only you do.

I'm not a fanboy. My camera is a tool and as long as it works for me then I'm happy. I prefer Canon to Nikon because I'm used to Canon and have an investment in Canon lenses but I don't see it as a competition other than each company pushes the other and we, as customers, benefit.

Will Canon sell a new high megapixel camera for $8K? Yes, I'm sure they will. Will they sell as many as they would if they sold it for $4k? Of course not.

Only time will tell where Canon prices it. I'm sure they'll do plenty of marketing analysis before they decide on pricing just as they always do. Look at the prices drops on the 5D Mark III already.

Oct 09 12 12:21 pm  Link  Quote 
first45678last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers