Canon bashing

[SuperSport]

You have obviously never used RAW, or you are not sophisticated enough to understand its obvious significant benefits.

the primary interest of these whiners is working a RAW image of a
test chart, pixel-peeping it at 500%, looking for artifacts or any
other "abnormalities" and then reporting their findings in these
forums, only to cry about the lack of RAW in canon's latest digi
cam offering.

i know it's a generalization, but those protesting the loudest are
the ones that aren't very good photographers themselves. they are
merely equipment junkies that lack any kind of artistic direction.

 

[kellert]

not only have i used it, but i've benefited from it. take these shots w/ tricky, indoor lighting. one without WB correction, the other with:





for me, the main benefit of RAW is that it's easier to adjust white balance. period. yes, you can eek out a "bit more" in several areas by working a RAW image, but only a bit. for me it's not worth the trouble. chances are, if you have to "work" a RAW image so much as to make it acceptable or to "save" it, chances are it's still not going to be any good.

give me a good jpg over poorly exposed RAW image any day.

and go ahead a "save" your underexposed RAW image. like i said, it's probably still not going to be worth saving, anyway.

take Peter G's landscapes. wonderful that he like to shoot raw, but 1- those images are easy to expose properly. it's hard to get those shots wrong in the first place. 2- he MIGHT be eking out an extra 2 - 5 % in IQ over the same jpg. even here, probably only visible to a pixel-peeper w/ a very large print. say he prints 1 large image in 100. for me that was a lot of extra work (and space consuming) to make an image that is going to impress no one any more than the same jpg.

you RAW guys say that space is not an issue and batch processing RAW is fast and easy.

well, i don't agree. and i've tried, using bruce frazer's techniques and others.

the primary interest of these whiners is working a RAW image of a
test chart, pixel-peeping it at 500%, looking for artifacts or any
other "abnormalities" and then reporting their findings in these
forums, only to cry about the lack of RAW in canon's latest digi
cam offering.

i know it's a generalization, but those protesting the loudest are
the ones that aren't very good photographers themselves. they are
merely equipment junkies that lack any kind of artistic direction.

 

[Peter G]

i know it's a generalization, but those protesting the loudest are
the ones that aren't very good photographers themselves. they are
merely equipment junkies that lack any kind of artistic direction.

You continue to take pot shots at everyone who wants to use Raw as poor photographers. But I note most of us raw using wanabees at least have the guts to include galleries in our profiles or sigs. At least we actually take pictures.

Where is yours? I don't presume to call other people poor photogs, I have the humility to realize I am no great photographer, but I have the stones to put a big swath of my pictures online.

If you are going to continue to disparage other photographers you should at least have the stones to back up the big talk with your own gallery.

I would particularly like to see your G5 images (which you claimed to own in another post).

 

[kellert]

the only "losers" are tech hacks wasting their time w/ RAW files from a p&s camera.

You have already lost this battle. But do make more fun of yourself
and keep talking big, the only substance you can provide.

 

[kellert]

hey peter...look what i wrote and quote me accurately.

first, i say "generalization". this alone implies not all.

next, i say "those protesting the loudest". their are probably plenty of people that need and benefit from RAW. but few are using a p&s, and they certainly aren't crying/sobbing/lashing out on this (or any) camera forum.

again, i've posted many images here over the years. you should know this as you seem to like digging up past threads of mine.

so take a hike and capture some more of those fine landscapes in RAW.

i know it's a generalization, but those protesting the loudest are
the ones that aren't very good photographers themselves. they are
merely equipment junkies that lack any kind of artistic direction.

You continue to take pot shots at everyone who wants to use Raw as
poor photographers. But I note most of us raw using wanabees at
least have the guts to include galleries in our profiles or sigs.
At least we actually take pictures.

Where is yours? I don't presume to call other people poor photogs,
I have the humility to realize I am no great photographer, but I
have the stones to put a big swath of my pictures online.

If you are going to continue to disparage other photographers you
should at least have the stones to back up the big talk with your
own gallery.

I would particularly like to see your G5 images (which you claimed
to own in another post).

 

[Virvatulet]

the only "losers" are tech hacks wasting their time w/ RAW files
from a p&s camera.

Says a guy who wants 10 mega pixels in a P&S camera...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=20088561

-Virvatulet

 

[Peter G]

next, i say "those protesting the loudest". their are probably
plenty of people that need and benefit from RAW. but few are using
a p&s, and they certainly aren't crying/sobbing/lashing out on this
(or any) camera forum.

I only mentioned raw in previous post of the G7 as part of a laundry list of missing features. I didn't give it any more weight than other missing features.

I went further into this discussion when you started attacking Raw as useless. You should speak for yourself and not everyone.

again, i've posted many images here over the years. you should know
this as you seem to like digging up past threads of mine.

I was actually looking for images which still seem to a rarity from you. In fact this thread was the first time I every saw you post an image and I note you hide your pbase gallery while doing so. You can dish it out criticism, but can't take it?

I just happened across that amusing S80 posting while looking for images.

 

[Dana199162]

Well, Canon people are always, and I do mean always, going to other people's web sites and kicking them. It's nice to see that you folks can eat each other too.

O'Neill: "Where we goin'?"
Teal'c: "P3X 234."
O'Neill: "Thank you, it's nice there this time of year."

I am a little bit flabergasted; it looks like this forum is
converting into a "kick Canon as much as you can" site.
I have been reading almost daily messages from people who repeat
time and again the same, like p.e. "I am disgusted with the G-7",
"I hate this new camera" etc. etc.
I frankly am not interested to read that a certain person tells us
that he/she will not buy the G-7.
I cannot believe that Canon would be so terribly stupid to market a
new camera with all the "imperfectos" people say it has.
Why don´t we wait until reviews are being published of the
630/640/A-700 IS and the G-7.
If these reviews turn out to be very negative, then we may start
bashing CanonRegards,
J.Alcántara

--
Dana Curtis Kincaid
http://www.angrytoyrobot.blogspot.com

Olympus E500
Minolta Scan Dual IV film scanner
Contax G1
Contax G2
Contax 167MT
Sony V1
Fuji 2800z
Sony Video Cameras
Canon S9000
Epson 820

Apple PowerMac Dual 2GHz G5

 

[vor]

I agree completely. Even if the G7 were to get completely glowing reviews from several reviewers, if it doesn't have the specifications that one is looking for, it just doesn't matter. The flip-out screen, the CompactFlash cards, and the BP-511 battery made it THE compact fixed-lens camera to carry along with (or to swap out with) a Canon dSLR.

About the only thing I can imagine that might have driven Canon to make these changes to the G series is that its price began to get too close to that of the entry-level dSLRs out there, forcing Canon to reduce the size and cost of the G series in order to keep the series alive. Ah well.

-v

Do you need a review by some "big shot authority" to tell you the
G7 doesn't have raw, doesn't have a flip out screen, doesn't use CF
cards or the BP-511, etc? The G series is aimed squarely at serious
photogs, not P&S users. These are the specs we look at. This itself
is enough to turn people away.

 

[SuperSport]

I don't think you are ready for RAW. I would suggest some serious pixel peeping on your part though.

for me, the main benefit of RAW is that it's easier to adjust white
balance. period. yes, you can eek out a "bit more" in several areas
by working a RAW image, but only a bit. for me it's not worth the
trouble. chances are, if you have to "work" a RAW image so much as
to make it acceptable or to "save" it, chances are it's still not
going to be any good.

give me a good jpg over poorly exposed RAW image any day.

and go ahead a "save" your underexposed RAW image. like i said,
it's probably still not going to be worth saving, anyway.

take Peter G's landscapes. wonderful that he like to shoot raw, but
1- those images are easy to expose properly. it's hard to get those
shots wrong in the first place. 2- he MIGHT be eking out an extra 2

• 5 % in IQ over the same jpg. even here, probably only visible to

a pixel-peeper w/ a very large print. say he prints 1 large image
in 100. for me that was a lot of extra work (and space consuming)
to make an image that is going to impress no one any more than the
same jpg.

you RAW guys say that space is not an issue and batch processing
RAW is fast and easy.

well, i don't agree. and i've tried, using bruce frazer's
techniques and others.

the primary interest of these whiners is working a RAW image of a
test chart, pixel-peeping it at 500%, looking for artifacts or any
other "abnormalities" and then reporting their findings in these
forums, only to cry about the lack of RAW in canon's latest digi
cam offering.

i know it's a generalization, but those protesting the loudest are
the ones that aren't very good photographers themselves. they are
merely equipment junkies that lack any kind of artistic direction.

 

[tomkaten]

Of course we don't want a new version of exactly the same camera.
What kind of ridiculous statement is that. We want an updated,
faster focusing, image stabilized, cleaner high ISO imaged, tilt
and swiveled, RAW shoot-in, hot shooed camera worthy of carrying
the G name.

Lol ? So basically you want your G6 back, with Digic 3 and IS.

I think Kellert has hit it spot on with most of his remarks. Not all of them, but certainly most of them. I was reading the topic and knew that 5 or 6 replies down the "there goes the troll" remarks would appear. And still, not one of you has proved him wrong, but you're certainly swift when it comes to digging up old threads about a user and thoroughly congratulating the one who found them. That's not very mature now, is it ?

I too think Raw is not such a big deal for most of Canon's customer base. The entire RAW argument is flawed imho. Alright, Raw is great, superb, gives unrivalled image quality. Then why put it on a point and shoot ? It defies logic. Yes, put it on a SLR, where IQ is much better, but on a PNS ?

If you want the best image quality, get a DSLR. Its jpegs will definitely destroy any PNS's "process it in three hours to get the same crappy results" RAW image.

I for one am sick of opening the CTF and seeing about 10 threads a day dealing with how much the G7 will suck and all that. How many picture threads have you seen here lately ? That's right, please go to STF or FTF and check out the number of picture posters there.

 

[kellert]

you really are clown.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=20021496

and a cry baby, too! "my little p&s doesn't have raw".

lmfao!!

I don't think you are ready for RAW. I would suggest some serious
pixel peeping on your part though.

 

[Tom O'Neil]

I've bought eight Canon cameras in the past eight years so I have the right to bash Canon as much as I want. If you don't want to hear about it, go read your little Ixus reviews and stay out of the line of fire. If we don't express our opinions in every available way, how is Canon going to know how badly they screwed up? I sent Canon an email saying how disappointed I was in the degradation of the G line and that I was probably never going to buy a Canon P&S again. I got a form response back saying thanks for your comment.

If you don't want RAW, flip screen, F2 lens, and whatever they left off of the G7, then by all means go buy a 630 or whatever POS camera you want. I want one with RAW, flip screen, F2 lens, etc.

 

[SuperSport]

you really are clown.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=20021496

and a cry baby, too! "my little p&s doesn't have raw".

lmfao!!

Actually mine does have RAW. If you had been paying attention you would know I just ordered a G6. Which in case you don't know because you were out flexing your artisitc JPEG muscles has RAW, tilt swivel LCD, f/2 lens, and comes with a wireless remote.

 

[SuperSport]

Of course we don't want a new version of exactly the same camera.
What kind of ridiculous statement is that. We want an updated,
faster focusing, image stabilized, cleaner high ISO imaged, tilt
and swiveled, RAW shoot-in, hot shooed camera worthy of carrying
the G name.

Lol ? So basically you want your G6 back, with Digic 3 and IS.

I gotta tell you the 6x zoom would be nice also.

I think Kellert has hit it spot on with most of his remarks. Not
all of them, but certainly most of them. I was reading the topic
and knew that 5 or 6 replies down the "there goes the troll"
remarks would appear. And still, not one of you has proved him
wrong, but you're certainly swift when it comes to digging up old
threads about a user and thoroughly congratulating the one who
found them. That's not very mature now, is it ?

We can start digging up old threads on you if you are feeling left out.

I too think Raw is not such a big deal for most of Canon's customer
base. The entire RAW argument is flawed imho. Alright, Raw is
great, superb, gives unrivalled image quality. Then why put it on a
point and shoot ? It defies logic. Yes, put it on a SLR, where IQ
is much better, but on a PNS ?

It defies logic when you have no logic, that is for sure.

If you want the best image quality, get a DSLR. Its jpegs will
definitely destroy any PNS's "process it in three hours to get the
same crappy results" RAW image.

You must have a very slow computer or you don't have the first clue about processing RAW files.

I for one am sick of opening the CTF and seeing about 10 threads a
day dealing with how much the G7 will suck and all that. How many
picture threads have you seen here lately ? That's right, please go
to STF or FTF and check out the number of picture posters there.

Hey, call Canon they are the ones that produced that pathetic excuse for a G series camera. We are just calling them on it.

 

[Alex Riley]

I too have read the recent negative outpourings against Canon with increasing disbelief.

Sure, in the opinion of every committed digicam addict (I have to include myself in this) Canon fails to get it "dead right" every time.

But, just look at the dpreview "Most hits" slot. Eight out of 10 are currently occupied by Canon. In the UK this could cause the Monopolies Commission to get interested. Why is this? Love them or hate them, these guys are producing the cameras we want.

I have no idea whether these virulently anti-Canon messages are posted by those committed to other manufacturers, but how might such zealots explain how Canon occupy so many of the top slots?

My wife's camera? A Canon. My own? A Canon? The various members of our family who respect my research? All Canons. Sure, we all have gripes. Did we buy the products of other manufacturers? Er, well, no.

Anyone who has picked up a Canon and simply used it without ever bothering to read the User Manual knows that they have got the User Interface right. We are, of course, all looking for the next best thing, but on recent history it is likely to come from Canon!

For myself, I am currently looking for a new camera. I have no preference whatever for any manufacturer. All I know is that I would be an idiot not to consider the Canon options extremely carefully.
Alex

 

[Koosla]

for me, the main benefit of RAW is that it's easier to adjust white
balance. period. yes, you can eek out a "bit more" in several areas
by working a RAW image, but only a bit. for me it's not worth the
trouble. chances are, if you have to "work" a RAW image so much as
to make it acceptable or to "save" it, chances are it's still not
going to be any good.

You're desperately trying to shift the issue from the RAW advantage to that of personal photographic/artistic skills. And seeing how this particular conversation evolves in your case, it's obvious that the aim is to engage in ego attacking/defending, thus completely avoiding formal discussion of the original point -the benefits of RAW.

Dialectic tricks are irrelevant, however. The RAW advantage over JPEG is completely independent of photographic skills (except those involving RAW processing, of course, which is an area of modern digital photography), and while with your own example you indeed demonstrate ONE of the RAW advantages, you then fail to clearly acknowledge any other advantage. Or, as you apparently think: "if I don't know of any other advantage, then there pretty much isn't any other advantage".

Do you know what de-mosaicing is? Do you know that there are numerous algorithms, still being further improved, that go well beyond what most cameras are capable of in terms of sharpness and detail, and no matter how good a photographer you think you are? Do you know that the wider dynamic range provided in RAW is useful not only to correct severely over/underexposed photos, but also to compress the dynamic range in photos where, no matter how carefully you expose, there's going to be BOTH underexposure and overexposure, and to an extent such that the same photo taken in JPEG would be far less treatable?

And even if RAW is sometimes used to try and compensate for exposure problems made by a mistake on the photographer's part, and not just because of camera limitations, what has that to do with RAW? Because chances are, if you exposed poorly while shooting in RAW, you would've done the same if you had shot in JPEG. Difference is, the RAW bad exposure will have more margin for correction than the JPEG, so if you nevertheless choose to shoot JPEG, you're basically limiting yourself.

give me a good jpg over poorly exposed RAW image any day.

And why not "give me seven JPEGs taken in automatic bracket exposure and tripod, over a poorly exposed RAW image any day"?

Your idea of fair comparison is, shall we say, rather particular.

and go ahead a "save" your underexposed RAW image. like i said,
it's probably still not going to be worth saving, anyway.

Even less worth of saving would be the equivalent JPEG.

Unless, of course, you apply your personal "good JPEG / bad RAW" rule...

you RAW guys say that space is not an issue and batch processing
RAW is fast and easy.

well, i don't agree. and i've tried, using bruce frazer's
techniques and others.

Why, I actually agree with you here. RAW doesn't come without a cost: time, and space. I, being a defendant of RAW (where defense is due), keep saying some people: if you don't have the time and the space, by all means don't shoot RAW. If you can't stand opening a RAW and processing it by using its advantages, don't use RAW, and certainly don't shoot a hundred RAWs, process them all in batch mode and without any adjustment at all, and then somehow expect the results to magically be better than the equivalent JPEGs would've been. RAW doesn't work that way, it's not intended for that lazy, no-time approach.

But even that doesn't demerit RAW itself. It only demerits your use of it, if you either don't know how to use, or don't want to use it.

Other people have the time and/or the skills, and for them RAW is the better option.

the primary interest of these whiners is working a RAW image of a
test chart, pixel-peeping it at 500%, looking for artifacts or any
other "abnormalities" and then reporting their findings in these
forums, only to cry about the lack of RAW in canon's latest digi
cam offering.

i know it's a generalization...

It's not a generalization, it's baiting. And poorly concealed, at that.

There's people saying that they use RAW, there's people saying that they don't... and then there's people like you, unable to refrain from belittling those who think differently.

 

[SuperSport]

I too have read the recent negative outpourings against Canon with
increasing disbelief.

Then you know how we feel when we say it is unbelievable what Canon is trying to pass off as a G series camera.

Sure, in the opinion of every committed digicam addict (I have to
include myself in this) Canon fails to get it "dead right" every
time.

That would have been fine. However, "dead wrong" is what we got.

But, just look at the dpreview "Most hits" slot. Eight out of 10
are currently occupied by Canon. In the UK this could cause the
Monopolies Commission to get interested. Why is this? Love them
or hate them, these guys are producing the cameras we want.

Yes, for the most part they do. It is just the pathetic G7 that has gotten everyone wound up.

I have no idea whether these virulently anti-Canon messages are
posted by those committed to other manufacturers, but how might
such zealots explain how Canon occupy so many of the top slots?

I believe for the very most part it is Canon owners that are disgusted with the G7

My wife's camera? A Canon. My own? A Canon? The various members
of our family who respect my research? All Canons. Sure, we all
have gripes. Did we buy the products of other manufacturers? Er,
well, no.

The same could be said about Nikon. Maybe not quite as often though.

Anyone who has picked up a Canon and simply used it without ever
bothering to read the User Manual knows that they have got the User
Interface right. We are, of course, all looking for the next best
thing, but on recent history it is likely to come from Canon!

The G7 was a golden opportunity.

For myself, I am currently looking for a new camera. I have no
preference whatever for any manufacturer. All I know is that I
would be an idiot not to consider the Canon options extremely
carefully.
Alex

Watch out for that $200 hot shoe Canon put on the G7.

 

[kellert]

i come back from lunch only to find this long-winded dissertation.

i'm not even going to read it.

blah, blah, blah.

for me, the main benefit of RAW is that it's easier to adjust white
balance. period. yes, you can eek out a "bit more" in several areas
by working a RAW image, but only a bit. for me it's not worth the
trouble. chances are, if you have to "work" a RAW image so much as
to make it acceptable or to "save" it, chances are it's still not
going to be any good.

You're desperately trying to shift the issue from the RAW advantage
to that of personal photographic/artistic skills. And seeing how
this particular conversation evolves in your case, it's obvious
that the aim is to engage in ego attacking/defending, thus
completely avoiding formal discussion of the original point -the
benefits of RAW.

Dialectic tricks are irrelevant, however. The RAW advantage over
JPEG is completely independent of photographic skills (except those
involving RAW processing, of course, which is an area of modern
digital photography), and while with your own example you indeed
demonstrate ONE of the RAW advantages, you then fail to clearly
acknowledge any other advantage. Or, as you apparently think: "if I
don't know of any other advantage, then there pretty much isn't any
other advantage".

Do you know what de-mosaicing is? Do you know that there are
numerous algorithms, still being further improved, that go well
beyond what most cameras are capable of in terms of sharpness and
detail, and no matter how good a photographer you think you are? Do
you know that the wider dynamic range provided in RAW is useful not
only to correct severely over/underexposed photos, but also to
compress the dynamic range in photos where, no matter how carefully
you expose, there's going to be BOTH underexposure and
overexposure, and to an extent such that the same photo taken in
JPEG would be far less treatable?

And even if RAW is sometimes used to try and compensate for
exposure problems made by a mistake on the photographer's part, and
not just because of camera limitations, what has that to do with
RAW? Because chances are, if you exposed poorly while shooting in
RAW, you would've done the same if you had shot in JPEG. Difference
is, the RAW bad exposure will have more margin for correction than
the JPEG, so if you nevertheless choose to shoot JPEG, you're
basically limiting yourself.

give me a good jpg over poorly exposed RAW image any day.

And why not "give me seven JPEGs taken in automatic bracket
exposure and tripod, over a poorly exposed RAW image any day"?

Your idea of fair comparison is, shall we say, rather particular.

and go ahead a "save" your underexposed RAW image. like i said,
it's probably still not going to be worth saving, anyway.

Even less worth of saving would be the equivalent JPEG.

Unless, of course, you apply your personal "good JPEG / bad RAW"
rule...

you RAW guys say that space is not an issue and batch processing
RAW is fast and easy.

well, i don't agree. and i've tried, using bruce frazer's
techniques and others.

Why, I actually agree with you here. RAW doesn't come without a
cost: time, and space. I, being a defendant of RAW (where defense
is due), keep saying some people: if you don't have the time and
the space, by all means don't shoot RAW. If you can't stand opening
a RAW and processing it by using its advantages, don't use RAW,
and certainly don't shoot a hundred RAWs, process them all in batch
mode and without any adjustment at all, and then somehow expect the
results to magically be better than the equivalent JPEGs would've
been. RAW doesn't work that way, it's not intended for that lazy,
no-time approach.

But even that doesn't demerit RAW itself. It only demerits your
use of it, if you either don't know how to use, or don't want to
use it.

Other people have the time and/or the skills, and for them RAW is
the better option.

the primary interest of these whiners is working a RAW image of a
test chart, pixel-peeping it at 500%, looking for artifacts or any
other "abnormalities" and then reporting their findings in these
forums, only to cry about the lack of RAW in canon's latest digi
cam offering.

i know it's a generalization...

It's not a generalization, it's baiting. And poorly concealed, at
that.

There's people saying that they use RAW, there's people saying that
they don't... and then there's people like you, unable to refrain
from belittling those who think differently.

 

[Koosla]

Now we know that, apart from everything else, your attention span is not as much limited as is selective:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=20111820

At which you promptly agreed, of course, even if it was pretty much as "long-winded" as mine.

That, along with your previous inconsistencies (now I want RAW, now I don't) and the obvious flaming tactics, describes you much more effectively than any of us could do.

Way to go