Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon bashing

Go to last post
A

Alcantara

Active member
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Location
Llíber, ES
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
 
To be fair to the "bashers", you hardly need a review to know whether or not the camera has RAW or a flip screen.

People will both praise and bash the image quality when the reviews come out (no matter what, I promise that there will be some here who love it and others who hate it) but right now there's a lot of frustration from people who have older "G"s or wanted something like the older "G"s with modern features like faster auto-focus. This camera simply doesn't have the features that people were hoping for.

Had Canon called it the "C100" people might be mourning the "G" series, but they wouldn't be bashing Canon over this particular offering.

When the S90 came out there was a similar string of rants about it no longer having the RAW of the older Sxx cameras. But it was still a pocketable WA camera with a top sensor and lots of manual features, so it was clearly an "Sxx" camera to most people. Honestly, it seems strange to me that Canon called this one a "G". It might be a terrific camera for its intended audience. But that audience doesn't overlap as much as you'd expect with the audience for the G1-G6.

(And now the S90 is out-of-print and we see laments from people who wished they had purchased it. Perhaps different people from the ones who wanted RAW, though.)
 
i have a feeling that most bashers are "sucky" photographers that spend most of their time measurebating and reviewing specs.
Alcantara said:
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
Click to expand...
 
For every action there is a reaction. The "Canon bashing" that is going on is a natural reaction to Canon's decisions regarding the G7. If there were no reaction, Canon might never know whether what it did was good or bad, and might take longer to learn from it's actions.

I think what is happening here should be valuable feedback to the people at Canon. In the end, the market will decide. If the majority on this board are wrong, then the market will show it. If on the other hand, those who express opinions here are right, then, Canon should consider this forum a valuable resource regarding their manufacturing decisions.
 
i think canon gives this forum the attention it deserves.

the people bashing and lashing out here represent maybe 1 % of canon's customer base.

here's something that happens with me all the time when i talk to people using canon G-series cameras and 20ds, rebel xt's, etc.

me: do you shoot with RAW format?

them: "what's that"? or "i've heard of that, how do you do it"?, etc.

some of the geeks here will tell you that people seek cameras, like the past G-series, that have RAW. well yah...maybe 5% max seeks out RAW. the other 95% of the users could not care less.

in reality, i'm quite sure that very, very few users of the reasonably priced cameras above sought them out for RAW capabilities.
ddtan said:
For every action there is a reaction. The "Canon bashing" that is
going on is a natural reaction to Canon's decisions regarding the
G7. If there were no reaction, Canon might never know whether what
it did was good or bad, and might take longer to learn from it's
actions.
I think what is happening here should be valuable feedback to the
people at Canon. In the end, the market will decide. If the
majority on this board are wrong, then the market will show it. If
on the other hand, those who express opinions here are right, then,
Canon should consider this forum a valuable resource regarding
their manufacturing decisions.
Click to expand...
 
Being upset that a camera lacks the features you have come to expect from that series is not bashing.
 
Alcantara said:
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
Click to expand...
There are very few people actually "bashing" Canon. It is only natural (and frankly constructive) for the many loyal G series users to express their dismay at the recent omissions Canon has made to the G7. Unfortunately, many of those features omitted were the exact same things that made the G series special (Fast glass, swivel lcd, raw etc). Lamenting the loss of those very helpful tools hardly constitutes "bashing." Depite the ludicrous statistics some are inventing to support their positions, it is a simple fact that the new G has gone in a different direction from it's predecessors, and will be more of interest to a different crowd than many of the previous G users. That has absolutely nothing to do with image quality, and everything to do with the inherent flexibility of the product.

The other point of relevance is that the features available on the G7 speak to Canon's obvious new direction for it's "high end" line, which would affect the Sxx series (already proven in the S80), and any possible new Pro series. Canon's high end series of cameras traditionally haven't (until recently) been marketed towards the average consumer. Since these forums are frequented by the manufacturers from time to time, it's very constructive for them to see criticism from those who aren't average consumers, but take their photography seriously enough to try to improve it by learning from the many fine photographers that contribute to the forums. :)
Best regards!
 
I suspect that the "1%" represented here are a fairly important group of consumers for Canon. That is, those who feel passionately about the issue, and those who because of their increased involvement, might actually be in a position to advise and influence a number of consumers greater than their numbers actually represent. Just a thought.
 
ddtan said:
I suspect that the "1%" represented here are a fairly important
group of consumers for Canon. That is, those who feel passionately
about the issue, and those who because of their increased
involvement, might actually be in a position to advise and
influence a number of consumers greater than their numbers actually
represent. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
The 1% make 80% of the noise just Apple owner (3%) make you think they are much more significant the World change.
--
Bob,
'There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.' Ansel Adams
Great Pro1
Casio Z750
 
First, I am a Canon supporter. I own two Canon DSLRs and one Canon 35mm SLR, plus the G6, and still have an OLD Canonet 28 with working flash, plus a large assortment of lenses, inlcuding a number of L series. I also own several (4) 35mm SLR's of various manufacture, and a couple small digital P&S's (not Canon). I had formal training via Nikon and Polaroid. The point is, I am not new to photography. That said, if I comment that I was disappotinted with the absence of features on a new model, (particularily the G7) that certainly dosen't mean it will not be a good seller or take great pictures. Canon builds fine cameras. It just may not be what I was looking for in an upgrade. The G7 should be a good camera. The question is, does it have the features YOU want? If not, that's not necessarily bashing.

For example, I know several Pros who never use RAW. I do because I like the extra flexibility and its my choice. It's a feature I personally like and look for. Not having it does not make the G7 a bad camera. The same for the flip screen, battery, memory card changes. The proof will be in the pictures. Who knows, after the reviews of actual photos, I might change my mind...

I'm sure Canon representatives, as well as other manufacturers view all the talk forums, not just this one, as that is smart marketing. Will they rush out and change a model due to the comments of a few on a forum. I sincerly doubt it, especially due to a lengthy creation cycle, but it may spark some internal business discussions, that may eventually change something.

I put my $ on what I like, and for the most part, that is Canon. I anxiously await the new 1 Series...
 
kellert said:
i think canon gives this forum the attention it deserves.
Click to expand...
How do you know? As you said on the subject line…
kellert said:
the people bashing and lashing out here represent maybe 1 % of
canon's customer base.
Click to expand...
From where did that number came from? Please do elaborate.
kellert said:
here's something that happens with me all the time when i talk to
people using canon G-series cameras and 20ds, rebel xt's, etc.

me: do you shoot with RAW format?

them: "what's that"? or "i've heard of that, how do you do it"?, etc.
Click to expand...
This may sound a bit rude, but shouldn’t you also get to know people that have the ambition and might to make the best out of their investment, both the time and the equipment? It is always a great opportunity for personal progress to be accompanied by those who have been given more. I do it often; maybe you could try it too.
kellert said:
some of the geeks here will tell you that people seek cameras, like
the past G-series, that have RAW. well yah...maybe 5% max seeks out
RAW. the other 95% of the users could not care less.
Click to expand...
I bet you are in "the other 95%"?
kellert said:
in reality, i'm quite sure that very, very few users of the
reasonably priced cameras above sought them out for RAW
capabilities.
Click to expand...
You should know better, it’s not only about RAW. And yes, the G7 is NOT a reasonably priced camera considering what it offers.

-Virvatulet
 
kellert said:
i have a feeling that most bashers are "sucky" photographers that
spend most of their time measurebating and reviewing specs.
Click to expand...
"measurebating".......what a fantastic term, hit the nail on the head!
 
kellert said:
i have a feeling that most bashers are "sucky" photographers that
spend most of their time measurebating and reviewing specs.
Click to expand...
If that were true they would love the 10mp like you do. Typical ignorant consumer!
 
Virvatulet said:
kellert said:
i think canon gives this forum the attention it deserves.
Click to expand...
How do you know? As you said on the subject line…
Click to expand...
i don't, actually. it's a guess based on my experience. how do you know i'm wrong?
Virvatulet said:
Virvatulet said:
the people bashing and lashing out here represent maybe 1 % of
canon's customer base.
Click to expand...
From where did that number came from? Please do elaborate.
Click to expand...
again, my guess based on what i've experienced.
Virvatulet said:
Virvatulet said:
here's something that happens with me all the time when i talk to
people using canon G-series cameras and 20ds, rebel xt's, etc.

me: do you shoot with RAW format?

them: "what's that"? or "i've heard of that, how do you do it"?, etc.
Click to expand...
This may sound a bit rude, but shouldn’t you also get to know
people that have the ambition and might to make the best out of
their investment, both the time and the equipment? It is always a
great opportunity for personal progress to be accompanied by those
who have been given more. I do it often; maybe you could try it too.
Click to expand...
i use 20d/RAW in very specific conditions. otherwise it's jpg. most people that use the cameras mentioned above DO NOT use RAW. if you can prove me wrong then you have have gained my utmost respect.
Virvatulet said:
Virvatulet said:
some of the geeks here will tell you that people seek cameras, like
the past G-series, that have RAW. well yah...maybe 5% max seeks out
RAW. the other 95% of the users could not care less.
Click to expand...
I bet you are in "the other 95%"?
Click to expand...
most times. i've done enough "measurebating" of my own to know that RAW benefit is very minimal in MOST situations. often times in camera jpg is better than 10 minutes, worked-up RAW of the same image.
Virvatulet said:
Virvatulet said:
in reality, i'm quite sure that very, very few users of the
reasonably priced cameras above sought them out for RAW
capabilities.
Click to expand...
You should know better, it’s not only about RAW. And yes, the
G7 is NOT a reasonably priced camera considering what it offers.
Click to expand...
boo-hoo. but i think that the market should determine that.
Virvatulet said:
-Virvatulet
Click to expand...
 
Alcantara said:
I frankly am not interested to read that a certain person tells us
that he/she will not buy the G-7.
Click to expand...
Then don't read it.

In the meantime, don't bash forum posters who like Canon gear, and are genuinely disappointed in the announced feature set of the G7.

Don't worry--I won't bore you with my thoughts on it.
 
kellert said:
most times. i've done enough "measurebating" of my own to know that
RAW benefit is very minimal in MOST situations. often times in
camera jpg is better than 10 minutes, worked-up RAW of the same
image.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a comment from someone with almost zero experience with raw. With most manufacturers Raw converter, you simply run the defaults and get you essentially exactly what the Jpg would have got you with NO intervention.

So you won't work for ten minutes on one image to be bested by jpeg. You will work for zero time to equal jpg as a starting point.

I simply batch my Raw files at camera defaults to get standard jpegs and walk away from the computer. Takes none of my time. Now I have my prints (jpgs) and still have my negatives if I want more out of the image.

Next up I can now select any image that warrants extra processing and have much more options to process it if wanted. Generally if I want to do more processing, I turn to 3rd party converters.

This enables:

Greater Detail: I tested this in prints as well. Extra detail is mainly from the fact that Canon does noise reduction that often erases fine texture at the same time. End result more detail visible in print and Less plastic/watercolor/smoothing look.

Noise reduction: Much better control of noise reduction. Ability to clean the chroma noise preferentially to be left with detailed slightly grainy file without color blotching. Much preferable to default smoothed color blotched mess.

Color balance corrections: Easy and correct fix rather than trying to do a post fix. Ability to try different looks all based on original file. Use different converter for different look.

Exposure compensation: change exposure slightly after the fact. Pull back some blowouts or pull more shadow details.

Also Raw lets you take advantage of any future advances in demosaic algorithms to pull yet more detail, better noise reduction, moire prevention etc.

Raw is win,win. When space is not an issue I shoot raw. When space is an issue, I shoot jpg and do the change to raw on review if I think the capture warrants it.

Raw is not for everyone, but don't make up BS about hardships of RAW. Your starting point is exactly the jpegs you would have got, plus a digital negative that gives you many advantages if you want to post process.
 
For Mr. Morales,

If I connect to the Canon Forum and even if I do not want to read the bashing messages, I have to scan the index to see what I do want to read and logically.........
Cordialmente,
J.Alcántara
 
batch processing RAW files is time consuming. just pulling up a RAW image for review in ACR or CS2 is time-consuming. everything about RAW is time-consuming. managing RAW files is another pain in the butt.

you probably use aRGB, too, right? well it don't because i find that sRGB workspace is better for people pics and skin tones and everything else i do w/ my digital images.

all of the so-called benefits you list below might come in handy in extreme situations. but the sad fact is that most folks obsessing over raw feature really need to work harder at just being better photographers. what i find is that most images that were not exposed properly are hard to make acceptable to my liking, RAW or not. the only time i use RAW is in tricky, mixed artificial, indoor lighting. in all other conditions jpg works fine for me.

why don't you show me a photo that is significant and important to you where RAW saved your a$$?

to me, you sound like a tech-type person, not much interested in the artistic side of photography. maybe i'm wrong.
Peter G said:
kellert said:
most times. i've done enough "measurebating" of my own to know that
RAW benefit is very minimal in MOST situations. often times in
camera jpg is better than 10 minutes, worked-up RAW of the same
image.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a comment from someone with almost zero experience
with raw. With most manufacturers Raw converter, you simply run
the defaults and get you essentially exactly what the Jpg would
have got you with NO intervention.

So you won't work for ten minutes on one image to be bested by
jpeg. You will work for zero time to equal jpg as a starting point.

I simply batch my Raw files at camera defaults to get standard
jpegs and walk away from the computer. Takes none of my time. Now I
have my prints (jpgs) and still have my negatives if I want more
out of the image.

Next up I can now select any image that warrants extra processing
and have much more options to process it if wanted. Generally if I
want to do more processing, I turn to 3rd party converters.

This enables:

Greater Detail: I tested this in prints as well. Extra detail is
mainly from the fact that Canon does noise reduction that often
erases fine texture at the same time. End result more detail
visible in print and Less plastic/watercolor/smoothing look.

Noise reduction: Much better control of noise reduction. Ability to
clean the chroma noise preferentially to be left with detailed
slightly grainy file without color blotching. Much preferable to
default smoothed color blotched mess.

Color balance corrections: Easy and correct fix rather than trying
to do a post fix. Ability to try different looks all based on
original file. Use different converter for different look.

Exposure compensation: change exposure slightly after the fact.
Pull back some blowouts or pull more shadow details.

Also Raw lets you take advantage of any future advances in demosaic
algorithms to pull yet more detail, better noise reduction, moire
prevention etc.

Raw is win,win. When space is not an issue I shoot raw. When space
is an issue, I shoot jpg and do the change to raw on review if I
think the capture warrants it.

Raw is not for everyone, but don't make up BS about hardships of
RAW. Your starting point is exactly the jpegs you would have got,
plus a digital negative that gives you many advantages if you want
to post process.
Click to expand...
 
kellert said:
Virvatulet said:
kellert said:
i think canon gives this forum the attention it deserves.
Click to expand...
How do you know? As you said on the subject line…
Click to expand...
i don't, actually. it's a guess based on my experience. how do you
know i'm wrong?
Click to expand...
This is pointless, but for the clarity, I was purely pointing out that you really don’t know.

I cannot nor don’t want to prove you wrong, since you are talking from your personal experience. There is no way contradicting that.

-Virvatulet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top