To me, there's nothing to forgive. I'm more likely to use my 1Ds Mark III than my D3 because for the majority of photos I shoot (that don't require otherwise prohibitively high ISO), I prefer the image quality of my Canon to my Nikon. In fact, I prefer it to any other system I've ever used, and I've tried many different brands.
I hope I didn't insult you (I meant "quick study" as a compliment).Because I see features in other systems that I want, that have beenI tend to believe that you, however, are a quick study and get bored
quickly. But I'm not sure if that's 'it', so I ask, why do you ask
that question?
out for some time, that Canon has been slow to incorporate, even when
they did incorporate them at all. So, my question was, if Canon is
not going to incorporate features that already exist in other
systems, then what have they been bringing to the table in the past
three years that makes it easy to "forgive" these omissions?
Are we talking about photography or Stock value?
Well, have at it, then. I still don't understand why this frustrates so, but that's not to say I don't have my own frustrations.
Why do you think, new innovation is more important than improving the innovation we already have?
Some of those are incrementally improved features, which may or may not be classififed as innovations. An innovation is a novel/new way of doing things. And your live view inclusion is a mistake, since Canon cannot lay claim to that innovation (or call it a new feature if that makes you happy
be patient yound padawan, be patient, photokina is just around the corner
Possible... but just like with regular SLR lenses, I can imagine the corner softness affecting the images unless only the centers are stitched together.
Innovation by definition is something that has not been done before, and an entirely different way of doing something.
In camera IS is not compatible with in lens IS, because the gyroscopes in the camera senses movement, so it will move the sensor, but the in lens IS has already steadied the image before it arrives at the sensor, so the in camera IS would simply blur the already steadied image. Other camera makers shake the sensor because they already have a movable sensor. It makes no sensor for Canon to have a movable sensor since it would only cause misalignments.
What innovations do you want?
Your sentiments were expressed quite a while ago at the Luminous Landscape web site. Canon has the advantage in sensors, but it has few innovations.
I think a more expensive full frame than the 5DMKII is possible, but it will probably not be released at the same time as the 5D MKII.
...had to pick up my daughter from school, make her some food to eat, read with her, play a bunch, take a few pics, take care of my son (change the diaper, feed him, keep him entertained), eat dinner with the family, go for a walk with the family, take care of the kids after the bath, feed Kublai again, tuck Seven in bed, and then kick it and wath the Ultimate Fighter penultimate episode, followed by the Daily Show that was on the DVR.
Well, I don't know what sales the 5D contributes to Canon, but I imagine it to be relatively small compared to the crop DSLRs, so I think it's presumptuous to say that "Canon would be dead". But it would be a huge blow to their main claim to fame, in terms of image. I mean, we all know the 1DsIII is the flagship, but I get the feeling that it is the 5D that symbolizes Canon's excellence.
Well, let's say the D700 is real. I imagine the 5DII will at worst be a lesser featured camera with equal or slightly better IQ (ala the 40D vs D300) at a lower price point -- something like a FF 40D at $1800, which simply makes Canon the less expensive and less featured camera company.
