Phil is old school

macky patalinghug · Oct 14, 2006

Phil is old school.

He just could not empathize with Canon’s most progressive move, coming up with the dust shaker. For a us third world shutterbugs who wants faster lenses but can’t afford L’s the shaker makes our changing of affordable primes in the midst of an assignment more risk free and comfortable. Phil’s heart is still with the “film school” where sensor dust did not yet exist.

I maybe wrong but I think a big part of his sneer for the E300/E330 Oly cameras are their non film-SLRish looks. Like all old shoolers Phil frowns on shifts of forms.

I’m sure many would disagree but I feel that the fascination for big bright view finders is a residue from the pre auto focus film camera practice. I certainly would love a camera with a big bright peephole (less eyestrain?) but I won’t let the absence of one distract me from my main aim which is taking pictures with great image quality. The combination of a good auto focus, a big playback LCD and reliable histograms will help me capture those keepers with or without a big bright peep hole.

And all this talk about ergonomics only points out that he failed to grasp a marketing move. DSLR Photography is not an exclusive game for big male westerners. There is quite a healthy market for it in Asia where majority of the populace don’t have hands as big as the male westerners. America is still the biggest market in photography but it need not mean all cameras there are being used by male photographers with big hands. In all certainty there are male and female photographers there who do have small hands. The DSLR photography market for women, especially young mothers, is happily addressed by 350D, 400D, D50 (?) and E-400 (though this one is not yet available there).

Although he was just enough to give the Canon entry levels the ratings they deserve but still one can discern from his words (from between the lines, so to speak) that he is not sensitive enough to the needs of people who have less than 20/20 vision, have small hands, little money and who want fast cameras that take good pictures that will most likely end up in albums and not in billboards.

Even his under appreciation of the tilt able live LCD on a DSLR shows his insensitivity to short people (or would he suggest that we walk around with aluminum ladders).

Unless somebody better comes along we will just have to accept the fact the best camera reviewer in the world has old film camera school biases.

--
slowshotmax

Oak and Acorn · Oct 14, 2006

Wow, interesting perspective. My take on your thoughts - use what you like, as long as it gets the job done.

And I definitely agree about the 'small hands' issue.

Bryan
--
Oak & Acorn

Robert_Asia · Oct 14, 2006

Your point is valid as long as you don't use the 400D with large lens. Mount a EF 70-200mm f/2.8 lens on the 400D and the risk of dropping it is much higher... small or large hands.

Robert

Oak and Acorn · Oct 14, 2006

Robert_Asia said:
Your point is valid as long as you don't use the 400D with large
lens. Mount a EF 70-200mm f/2.8 lens on the 400D and the risk of
dropping it is much higher... small or large hands.

Robert

I find on my XT that the grip took care of this issue very nicely.

Bryan
--
Oak & Acorn

Dave Oddie · Oct 14, 2006

macky patalinghug said:
Phil is old school.

He just could not empathize with Canon’s most progressive move,
coming up with the dust shaker. For a us third world shutterbugs
who wants faster lenses but can’t afford L’s the shaker makes our
changing of affordable primes in the midst of an assignment more
risk free and comfortable. Phil’s heart is still with the “film
school” where sensor dust did not yet exist.

I could say until Canon produced a camera with a dust shaker many Canon people didn't acknowledge it existed either.

As to Phil, if you bother to read any of his Oly reviews (look at the E-1 review) he uses words like it is good to see a camera maker take this problem seriously.

So I am not sure where oyu are coming form here.

macky patalinghug said:
I maybe wrong but I think a big part of his sneer for the E300/E330
Oly cameras are their non film-SLRish looks. Like all old shoolers
Phil frowns on shifts of forms.

I am an Oly fane having used film OM cameras for years but I don't coonclude his opinions on those two cameras are because of the looks. I think he may have made a comment in the e300 review about the looks being unconventional or something like that but most of the problems he has/had with those cameras are nothing to do with how they look.

macky patalinghug said:
I’m sure many would disagree but I feel that the fascination for
big bright view finders is a residue from the pre auto focus film
camera practice. I certainly would love a camera with a big bright
peephole (less eyestrain?) but I won’t let the absence of one
distract me from my main aim which is taking pictures with great
image quality. The combination of a good auto focus, a big playback
LCD and reliable histograms will help me capture those keepers with
or without a big bright peep hole.

Anything that makes a camera easier ot use will help you get a better shot. My old OM4 had a 100% viewfinder and having looked through several d-slr viewfinders that are small I think they stink!

Ther ei snothing to day autofocus means you should compromise the viewfinder.

macky patalinghug said:
And all this talk about ergonomics only points out that he failed
to grasp a marketing move. DSLR Photography is not an exclusive
game for big male westerners. There is quite a healthy market for
it in Asia where majority of the populace don’t have hands as big
as the male westerners. America is still the biggest market in
photography but it need not mean all cameras there are being used
by male photographers with big hands. In all certainty there are
male and female photographers there who do have small hands. The
DSLR photography market for women, especially young mothers, is
happily addressed by 350D, 400D, D50 (?) and E-400 (though this one
is not yet available there).

Are you serious? What you are saying above is that Canon does not make a camera ergonomically good enough for any person with big hands less than the price of a 30D. By the way did you not know that in cerain Asian counties people are actually getting bigger due to an improved quality of life?

To suggest that Canon ignored its biggest makets ( the biggest market for cameras is by he way Europe as of this year I think) is nuts.

The way the 400D is, is down to Canon applying product differentiation. If it had a bigger grip and had spot metering it would be too much competition for the 30D.

macky patalinghug said:
Although he was just enough to give the Canon entry levels the
ratings they deserve but still one can discern from his words (from
between the lines, so to speak) that he is not sensitive enough to
the needs of people who have less than 20/20 vision, have small
hands, little money and who want fast cameras that take good
pictures that will most likely end up in albums and not in
billboards.

So in that case everyone may as well buy an Oly e500 twin lens kit.

macky patalinghug said:
Even his under appreciation of the tilt able live LCD on a DSLR
shows his insensitivity to short people (or would he suggest that
we walk around with aluminum ladders).

Now that is hilarious and makes me wonder if your post is remotely serious.

macky patalinghug said:
Unless somebody better comes along we will just have to accept the
fact the best camera reviewer in the world has old film camera
school biases.

He does not get everything right and while I agree with him the Nikon D80 is the beet of the two cameras from a photographers point of view he does ignore the dust problem he has not ignored in the past.

The addition of dust reduction to Canon is a good thing. But even if Phil did not go overboard on this it does not mean it represnts some anti-Canon bias.

Dave

Robotnik12356 · Oct 14, 2006

Isn't the Asian lady featured in the flash tests in Phil's reviews his wife?
Surely then he must be somewhat sympathetic to the Asian, small hands thing?

macky patalinghug said:
Phil is old school.

He just could not empathize with Canon’s most progressive move,
coming up with the dust shaker. For a us third world shutterbugs
who wants faster lenses but can’t afford L’s the shaker makes our
changing of affordable primes in the midst of an assignment more
risk free and comfortable. Phil’s heart is still with the “film
school” where sensor dust did not yet exist.

I maybe wrong but I think a big part of his sneer for the E300/E330
Oly cameras are their non film-SLRish looks. Like all old shoolers
Phil frowns on shifts of forms.

I’m sure many would disagree but I feel that the fascination for
big bright view finders is a residue from the pre auto focus film
camera practice. I certainly would love a camera with a big bright
peephole (less eyestrain?) but I won’t let the absence of one
distract me from my main aim which is taking pictures with great
image quality. The combination of a good auto focus, a big playback
LCD and reliable histograms will help me capture those keepers with
or without a big bright peep hole.

And all this talk about ergonomics only points out that he failed
to grasp a marketing move. DSLR Photography is not an exclusive
game for big male westerners. There is quite a healthy market for
it in Asia where majority of the populace don’t have hands as big
as the male westerners. America is still the biggest market in
photography but it need not mean all cameras there are being used
by male photographers with big hands. In all certainty there are
male and female photographers there who do have small hands. The
DSLR photography market for women, especially young mothers, is
happily addressed by 350D, 400D, D50 (?) and E-400 (though this one
is not yet available there).

Although he was just enough to give the Canon entry levels the
ratings they deserve but still one can discern from his words (from
between the lines, so to speak) that he is not sensitive enough to
the needs of people who have less than 20/20 vision, have small
hands, little money and who want fast cameras that take good
pictures that will most likely end up in albums and not in
billboards.

Even his under appreciation of the tilt able live LCD on a DSLR
shows his insensitivity to short people (or would he suggest that
we walk around with aluminum ladders).

Unless somebody better comes along we will just have to accept the
fact the best camera reviewer in the world has old film camera
school biases.

--
slowshotmax

iliask · Oct 14, 2006

Indeed, your perspective is interesting and hard to argue with, although some points may be too "politically correct" for my taste.

I'm not a small person, maybe a typical westerner, but going on a hike or even a short shoot I can appreciate all the reduce in weight I can get. From the first moment, the Rebel felt just right in my hand.

Not having been involved with film in the past, it seems so obvious to me that many cririsisms of the Rebel simply stem from the 'old film ways' and really don't affect the photo-taking process at all.

Excellent image quality, good performance, full manual set of controls and a great price. Canon is a solid company, with many interesting innovations already announced, so your lens investment is protected for a long time to come. Hard to go wrong.

Ilias

--
http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b207/iliask

ditigalgraph · Oct 14, 2006

Excellent image quality, good performance, full manual set of controls and a great price. Canon is a solid company, with many interesting innovations already announced, so your lens investment is protected for a long time to come. Hard to go wrong.

This statement says so much. I am trying to get into the DSLR market. I have not got the money yet, But when I do it will not be the camera lone that will influence my buying decision. Anyone who is truly serious about this will pay for a nice lens and that lens will come close to the body price alone. They probably will want a nice flash. It won't be long before the price of the camera will be nothing in comparison to the total investment. So if you have Canon stuff you are not going to take a lost to sell it all for a Nikon D80, nor will it be the other way if Canon's next one is better than the Nikon. Unless you have more money than brains you can't just ship like you can with point and shoots.

I happen to have many friends with nice Canon lenses I can borrow. That has a big impact upon the company I will go with. Both Nikon and Canon have great systems and you can't really go wrong with either. I would have real problems buying a Sony as their system is small with only one camera to center around. Unless Sony can get pros interested their R&D will not be as great and Nikon and Canon.

With DSLR you by into a system—a company and anyone who talks otherwise is just playing around.

Jun2 · Oct 14, 2006

I am Asian male. My hands are not that big. I still find the grip too small. May be my fingers are not so flexible.

Jun

Boomz · Oct 14, 2006

Hi Macky,

You are spot on ...
"> And all this talk about ergonomics only points out that he failed

macky patalinghug said:
to grasp a marketing move. DSLR Photography is not an exclusive
game for big male westerners. There is quite a healthy market for
it in Asia where majority of the populace don’t have hands as big
as the male westerners. America is still the biggest market in
photography but it need not mean all cameras there are being used
by male photographers with big hands. In all certainty there are
male and female photographers there who do have small hands. The
DSLR photography market for women, especially young mothers, is
happily addressed by 350D, 400D, D50 (?) and E-400 (though this one
is not yet available there)."

I have many (both asian and non-asian) lady friends who are very happy that the grip size has not increased in the 400D. For us it is compact. For them is it a nice fit and comfortable grip.

For these lady friends who purchased (350D) or want to purchase the new 400D, the comfortable grip size was a major deciding factor between using a 350D/400D or a lS3 or FZ50. Nikon grips are too big. They can't hold them for long in one hand. As one friend exclaimed: "Its like lifting weights at the gym, why don't they make smaller bar bells for ladies?" I see lucrative law suits, haha!

Back to the topic, if the 400D egro is considered so bad, then who is buying all these compacts cameras? And why?

I think the key word here is 'compact'. People want small. Canon designed for people who want a really compact DSLR. If you compare the grip of any powershot the 400D is 'big'

The huge Asian consumer market (China/India?) will love this. In America its compact, there just the right size. Not a bad product.

I think Phil missed the design intent in his comment. I think Canon got it right.

My 2 American cents.

--
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=598880

Jovo · Oct 14, 2006

Well the good news is that I use the 70-200mm F2.8L and the 400mm F5.6L on the 400D daily and have never dropped it! Try using the neck strap and lightly supporting the end of the lens with your left hand.

Robert_Asia said:
Your point is valid as long as you don't use the 400D with large
lens. Mount a EF 70-200mm f/2.8 lens on the 400D and the risk of
dropping it is much higher... small or large hands.

Robert

--

Phil Askey · Oct 14, 2006

Sorry macky but this whole post is laughable, I was going to comment on it but I've decided you've got me SOOO WRONG it's just not worth it.

macky patalinghug said:
Phil is old school.

He just could not empathize with Canon’s most progressive move,
coming up with the dust shaker. For a us third world shutterbugs
who wants faster lenses but can’t afford L’s the shaker makes our
changing of affordable primes in the midst of an assignment more
risk free and comfortable. Phil’s heart is still with the “film
school” where sensor dust did not yet exist.

I maybe wrong but I think a big part of his sneer for the E300/E330
Oly cameras are their non film-SLRish looks. Like all old shoolers
Phil frowns on shifts of forms.

I’m sure many would disagree but I feel that the fascination for
big bright view finders is a residue from the pre auto focus film
camera practice. I certainly would love a camera with a big bright
peephole (less eyestrain?) but I won’t let the absence of one
distract me from my main aim which is taking pictures with great
image quality. The combination of a good auto focus, a big playback
LCD and reliable histograms will help me capture those keepers with
or without a big bright peep hole.

And all this talk about ergonomics only points out that he failed
to grasp a marketing move. DSLR Photography is not an exclusive
game for big male westerners. There is quite a healthy market for
it in Asia where majority of the populace don’t have hands as big
as the male westerners. America is still the biggest market in
photography but it need not mean all cameras there are being used
by male photographers with big hands. In all certainty there are
male and female photographers there who do have small hands. The
DSLR photography market for women, especially young mothers, is
happily addressed by 350D, 400D, D50 (?) and E-400 (though this one
is not yet available there).

Although he was just enough to give the Canon entry levels the
ratings they deserve but still one can discern from his words (from
between the lines, so to speak) that he is not sensitive enough to
the needs of people who have less than 20/20 vision, have small
hands, little money and who want fast cameras that take good
pictures that will most likely end up in albums and not in
billboards.

Even his under appreciation of the tilt able live LCD on a DSLR
shows his insensitivity to short people (or would he suggest that
we walk around with aluminum ladders).

Unless somebody better comes along we will just have to accept the
fact the best camera reviewer in the world has old film camera
school biases.

--
slowshotmax

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

macky patalinghug · Oct 14, 2006

Phil Askey said:
Sorry macky but this whole post is laughable, I was going to
comment on it but I've decided you've got me SOOO WRONG it's just
not worth it.

But you did bite the bait, Phil

You did comment – "you've got me SOOO WRONG it's just
not worth it."

And from the above replies not everybody is laughing.

You’re still the best man on the job, though. You are like some kind of John de Baptist paving the way for the next great reviewer who will have nothing to do with the old film ways.

Till that day comes dpreview will be our daily gospel

--
slowshotmax

eastbroadtop · Oct 14, 2006

The key point of the review that I found is that the image quality of the 400/XTi, D80, and Sony are virtually indistinguishable from each other. From my standpoint, that's paramount importance. (Also interesting to note that he says the image quality of the 350/XT is more-or-less identical, too--especially since I have an XT. Buyer's remorse put to rest.) This development brings us closer to the "good ole days" than ever before.

Used to be that the camera body itself had nothing to do with the quality of the image. If you wanted a detailed image, you used a good lens and slow film. The body itself was merely the tool which you used to capture the image. You chose the body based on the features it had, and how those features matched your workflow. Now, with the cameras in question all yielding equal results, it's very much akin to using the same film in every camera. Image quality is no longer a deciding factor, we can go back to strictly basing our choice on form and function.

Function is a quantitative commodity, and easily comparable between the various offerings. If you use spot metering, then the XTi isn't as attractive as the D80. If you change lenses often, or work in an environment prone to dust, then the D80 isn't as attractive. In that regard, you can base your choice of camera on what best matches your workflow.

Form, or ergonomics, is a completely different animal. That's such an individual concept that I really don't know why so much bandwidth is wasted here arguing about it. I don't have a problem with the XT's size, as my primary camera prior to the XT was an AE-1. I can see where someone who's used to a larger camera body like the old T-90 may find the XT/XTi a bit cramped. I don't see how disagreeing with someone over their personal preference would ever be remotely productive.

Personally, I think that ergonomics shouldn't be a major consideration in any review unless there's something glaringly wrong, such as the power button being right next to the shutter or something weird like that. The playing field is now surprisingly level in terms of the end result. That's a good thing. Now, we can concentrate on tailoring our particular tool to our individual needs, just like the good ole' days. We want our tools to fit our hands like gloves. Now, we're finally free to choose solely on fit.

Later,

K

Alain D · Oct 14, 2006

I'm 6'3" and large hands to match and I like the small size of the Xt - had the DR/300D for a year and never liked the bulky body (seemed mostly empty plastic to me).

If you have any significant lens on it (not the kit of the 50 f1.8) which may weight as much as the body if not more, then you're gonna hold the camera by the lens base anyway, and you need you left hand for support for shooting, so not having a brick to carry all the time is a good thing IMO.

--
---------------
Alain D

Rebel X T / 3 5 0 D
sigma 1 8 - 2 0 0 mm f3.5/6.3
canon 5 0 mm f 1.8
canon 7 5 - 3 0 0mm f 4-5.6 III
canon 1 8 - 5 5 mm kit
flash 4 2 0 E X

Sarajean · Oct 14, 2006

nice try

Sarajean · Oct 14, 2006

macky patalinghug said:
And all this talk about ergonomics only points out that he failed to grasp a marketing move. DSLR Photography is not an exclusive game for big male westerners. There is quite a healthy market for it in Asia where majority of the populace don’t have hands as big as the male westerners. America is still the biggest market in photography but it need not mean all cameras there are being used by male photographers with big hands. In all certainty there are male and female photographers there who do have small hands. The DSLR photography market for women, especially young mothers, is happily addressed by 350D, 400D, D50 (?) and E-400 (though this one is not yet available there).

No thats stupid.

Percy Cheng · Oct 15, 2006

Sorry, but what you think might not be the fact,
I'm asian, and have small hand.
I also feel that the grip of 400D is not good(I better say:Bad)
And it's just my personal feeling, if you know chinese,
go to some chinese forums and you'll find that tons of people
dont like the grip too.
It's not a marketing move, or canon more concern about
small hand people.

The fact is, the grip is really bad.

macky patalinghug said:
Phil is old school.

He just could not empathize with Canon’s most progressive move,
coming up with the dust shaker. For a us third world shutterbugs
who wants faster lenses but can’t afford L’s the shaker makes our
changing of affordable primes in the midst of an assignment more
risk free and comfortable. Phil’s heart is still with the “film
school” where sensor dust did not yet exist.

I maybe wrong but I think a big part of his sneer for the E300/E330
Oly cameras are their non film-SLRish looks. Like all old shoolers
Phil frowns on shifts of forms.

I’m sure many would disagree but I feel that the fascination for
big bright view finders is a residue from the pre auto focus film
camera practice. I certainly would love a camera with a big bright
peephole (less eyestrain?) but I won’t let the absence of one
distract me from my main aim which is taking pictures with great
image quality. The combination of a good auto focus, a big playback
LCD and reliable histograms will help me capture those keepers with
or without a big bright peep hole.

And all this talk about ergonomics only points out that he failed
to grasp a marketing move. DSLR Photography is not an exclusive
game for big male westerners. There is quite a healthy market for
it in Asia where majority of the populace don’t have hands as big
as the male westerners. America is still the biggest market in
photography but it need not mean all cameras there are being used
by male photographers with big hands. In all certainty there are
male and female photographers there who do have small hands. The
DSLR photography market for women, especially young mothers, is
happily addressed by 350D, 400D, D50 (?) and E-400 (though this one
is not yet available there).

Although he was just enough to give the Canon entry levels the
ratings they deserve but still one can discern from his words (from
between the lines, so to speak) that he is not sensitive enough to
the needs of people who have less than 20/20 vision, have small
hands, little money and who want fast cameras that take good
pictures that will most likely end up in albums and not in
billboards.

Even his under appreciation of the tilt able live LCD on a DSLR
shows his insensitivity to short people (or would he suggest that
we walk around with aluminum ladders).

Unless somebody better comes along we will just have to accept the
fact the best camera reviewer in the world has old film camera
school biases.

--
slowshotmax

giulianus · Oct 15, 2006

I think the Phil this time want to take a revenge against Canon.
In his replies to the many guys who wanted a review of the 400d i noticed
Phil's resentment 'cause Canon didn't send soon a copy of the camera to him.

I hope that this my feeling is wrong!!

Bernard Languillier · Oct 15, 2006

macky patalinghug said:
Phil is old school.

Just like Europe is old when it doesn't agree with the US, right?

macky patalinghug said:
He just could not empathize with Canon’s most progressive move,
coming up with the dust shaker. For a us third world shutterbugs
who wants faster lenses but can’t afford L’s the shaker makes our
changing of affordable primes in the midst of an assignment more
risk free and comfortable. Phil’s heart is still with the “film
school” where sensor dust did not yet exist.

A cool feature, but I wouldn't pay 20 US$ for it. I clean my D2x sensor once every 6 months and it is good enough...

macky patalinghug said:
I’m sure many would disagree but I feel that the fascination for
big bright view finders is a residue from the pre auto focus film
camera practice. I certainly would love a camera with a big bright
peephole (less eyestrain?) but I won’t let the absence of one
distract me from my main aim which is taking pictures with great
image quality. The combination of a good auto focus, a big playback
LCD and reliable histograms will help me capture those keepers with
or without a big bright peep hole.

Well, that's a testimony to your skills, but I personnally have reached the conclusion that composition is helped big way by a good viewfinder. It comes from someone who has shot a D100 and many other cameras all the way up to 4*5.

Without a good composition, I don't care the least bit about image quality. Photography is about light, and seeing the light, a good viewfinder is the single most important aspect of a camera for me. Not only to achieve successful images, but also for the sheer pleasure of shooting.

I couldn't care less whether the 400D is better than the D80 or the opposite, they are both good camera, but denying the importance of a good viewfinder is difficult to accept...

Cheers,
Bernard

Phil is old school

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Phil Askey

Guest

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts