Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon vs. Sony Marketing

Go to last post
Andrew.P.L said:
While I agree it would be nice if Canon has more stabilized primes,
but Sony in-camera IS might be free but Sony overcharged their
customers for their lenses anyway. Look at this
Sony SAL-70200G Zoom Telephoto AF 70-200mm f/2.8 $2,299.95
Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS $1,599.00
Click to expand...
Personally I would use the non-IS version of the Canon lens because IMO it is a more apples-to-apples comparison (I don't expect to pay more for a lens because of functionality in a camera body).

Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L $1,140.00

That would make it a whopping $1160.00 difference - I could buy 2 Canon lenses for the price of the Sony.
AndrewPL said:
We're taking about $700 difference here

Sony SAL-300F28G Telephoto 300mm f/2.8 $5,699.95
Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/2.8L IS $3,899.00
Click to expand...
I can't find a Canon 300/2.8 without IS but the difference is really more than the $1800 you quoted IMO.
AndrewPL said:
Whooping $1800 difference

and per Phil, in camera IS is a lot less effective with long lens
than in-lens IS anyway.
Click to expand...
Until Phil or someone else does a scientific test on this it is all speculation IMO.
AndrewPL said:
--
http://lpta.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
--
fjbyrne
 
PeaceFrog said:
Humm, maybe you could post some links??? I have actually been told
the opposite from the Manager of the NJ service center back when I
had my 400mm f/2.8L IS USM in for service. I was told that is was
very unusual for IS units to fail which is a far cry from them
needing to be serviced every few years. I have been using the heck
out of my 500 IS for the past several years and haven’t needed any IS
service on that lens. The same can be said for my 100-400 IS so at
least that bit of experience would disagree with your assertion.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that a lens with IS vs the same design without it is going to be less reliable. This is due to more parts that can break (moving parts also tend to wear out compared to non-moving parts). This is also true of a camera body with and without IS as well. That doesn't however mean that the lens or camera is unreliable. Maybe the lens only lasts 30 years instead of 50 years or something like that.
PeaceFrog said:
I do actually seem to recall KM having huge problems with sensor
shift with one of their bodies and Sony having to give a lot of
refunds as a result. So from what I have seen the case seems to be
quite the opposite of what you have stated.
Click to expand...
There did seem to be some issues with the AS on the 7D. It appears that the 5D has been better and I think the A100 is about the same as the 5D (maybe a little better). The refund was due to lack of parts.
PeaceFrog said:
Again, you have put forth a lot of speculation and are presenting it
as fact.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Click to expand...
--
fjbyrne
 
PeaceFrog said:
Could you please provide a link that describes this
“anti-shake-gelled lens element.”
Click to expand...
Well, I guess the right term for this lens element (or group of elements) is 'the compensative optical system'. If you want to know what specific components and materials, Canon or Nikon respectively use to mount, move and dampen each lens element in such systems, I am definitely not the one to ask, sorry :)

I was just trying to be helpful, adressing your questions here, and came to remember this dispute over the Nikon 18-200 VR. I think it was raised here by David Kilpatrick on the basis of a magazine test. Sometime last year.

Good luck with your further investigations...
 
Thanks for your response. I was very curious about the gel part as I checked the old IS group from my 400mm f/2.8L IS USM that was dropped and I could find no trace of gel anywhere in it when I took it apart which made me start to think this whole gel thing might be a bunch of nonsense.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
 
PeaceFrog said:
Thanks for your response. I was very curious about the gel part as I
checked the old IS group from my 400mm f/2.8L IS USM that was dropped
and I could find no trace of gel anywhere in it when I took it apart
which made me start to think this whole gel thing might be a bunch of
nonsense.
Click to expand...
I am sorry that I can't help you any better with your investigations. What mechanics and materials you have found in your Canon lens migth not constitute what is to be found in a Nikon lens (as in this case), and if I have used the word gel incorrectly, I can only apologize, as this was all brought forward from my remembering.

At the end of the day, a centering issue was adressed, and the VR function was taken to account. Unfortunately, I did not engage in this incident personally, and therefore I can't be of assistance with personal evidence about the matter.

I am only happy for you that you have found your heavy investments in IS lenses to be helpful and trustworthy. Hundreds or even thousands of dollars spent on a feature like IS shouldn't be waisted.
 
No, I am not trying to get after you about anything. I am just trying to sort out the facts. Nikon might very well use some sort of gel. As best as I can tell Canon doesn’t seem to.

So far I don’t feel like I have wasted a penny on IS. It is a great feature weather it comes in the lens or in the body as far as I am concerned.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
 
PeaceFrog said:
I don’t feel like I have wasted a penny on IS. It is a great
feature weather it comes in the lens or in the body as far as I am
concerned.
Click to expand...
God for you - and good for you, that you have such amounts of cash to spend on your lenses. Not many have that :)
 
LOL well I am not sure exactly what you are talking about. If I wanted to buy the KM 500mm f/4 how much would that cost???? How much is the KM 600mm f/4? I bet it is more than I paid for my IS model. For doing the type of photography that I enjoy most you need a long fast lens and as far as I can see Canon is the least expensive way to go at the moment.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
 
PeaceFrog said:
LOL well I am not sure exactly what you are talking about. If I
wanted to buy the KM 500mm f/4 how much would that cost???? How much
is the KM 600mm f/4? I bet it is more than I paid for my IS model.
For doing the type of photography that I enjoy most you need a long
fast lens and as far as I can see Canon is the least expensive way to
go at the moment.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Click to expand...
Can't argue with that ;)

--
fjbyrne
 
PeaceFrog said:
LOL well I am not sure exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
I think we were talking about how happy you were with your Canon IS lenses, and that in your view they are worth every penny of the $$$ premium compared to toher Canon lenses. What else?

Are yoy trying to stir up a fight?
 
Humm, maybe you didn’t understand. I was saying that I was very happy with the IS feature in general be it in lens or in body. I am a fan of IS and I don’t really care where it is located. I am in no way a detractor on in body IS, it is a feature that I want and am willing to pay for.

Hopefully that clears things up.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
 
PeaceFrog said:
Humm, maybe you didn’t understand.
Click to expand...
Another unkind entry to a post. Is this your specialty?
PeaceFrog said:
I was saying that I was very happy with the IS feature in general be it

in lens or in body. I am a fan of IS and I don’t really care where it is located.
Click to expand...
In fact, you were referring to your Canon lenses and that they were worth 'every penny'. I was only reflecting that view. What is your problem with that?
PeaceFrog said:
I am in no way a detractor on in body IS, it is a feature that I want and am
willing to pay for.
Click to expand...
As it happens, it just seems that it is not anywhere near necessary to pay the kind of money that you are used to, for people who choose an in-body solution. Do you have a problem with that?
PeaceFrog said:
Hopefully that clears things up.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Click to expand...
 
tweedle said:
PeaceFrog said:
Humm, maybe you didn’t understand.
Click to expand...
Another unkind entry to a post. Is this your specialty?
tweedle said:
I was saying that I was very happy with the IS feature in general be it

in lens or in body. I am a fan of IS and I don’t really care where it is located.
Click to expand...
In fact, you were referring to your Canon lenses and that they were
worth 'every penny'. I was only reflecting that view. What is your
problem with that?
tweedle said:
I am in no way a detractor on in body IS, it is a feature that I want and am
willing to pay for.
Click to expand...
As it happens, it just seems that it is not anywhere near necessary
to pay the kind of money that you are used to, for people who choose
an in-body solution. Do you have a problem with that?
tweedle said:
Hopefully that clears things up.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Tweedle,

Hope you don't mind me interjecting here but: I think you are reading things into Greg's comments that aren't there. He has been very reasonable IMO. He hasn't bashed KM or Sony and he actually is one of the few Canon shooters that seem to see the value in body-based IS. He has specific needs for the type of shooting he does that quite frankly Sony can't provide at the moment.

Just my 2 cents.

--
fjbyrne
 
fjbyrne said:
Hope you don't mind me interjecting here
Click to expand...
Not at all :)
fjbyrne said:
I think you are reading things into Greg's comments that aren't there.
He has been very reasonable IMO. He hasn't bashed KM or Sony
Click to expand...
Did anyone say that? I didn't.
fjbyrne said:
he actually is one of the few Canon shooters that seem to see the value in
body-based IS.
Click to expand...
Skin-deep, if you read the posts closer :)
fjbyrne said:
He has specific needs for the type of shooting he does that quite frankly
Sony can't provide at the moment.
Click to expand...
And all I have said is that I am happy for him that he is happy for the solutions he has chosen. Unfortunately, Greg apparently wasn't intended to let it be at that.

I wonder why?
 
Jose:

Don't know how you would define a failure, but Canon certainly had issues with the early IS versions when mounted on a tripod resulting in a lack of sharpness and , as I recall, battery consumption being higher than what was anticipated. The sharpnes issue was documented in pop Photo some 3-4 years ago.

cheers
Tim
 
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