Really? Where do you people get this BS..? If I presented you with two pics, one taken with the 300 and the other with the 400 all things being equal you wouldn't tell 'em apart to save your life so what's your point..? I happen to use both 400/2.8 L IS and 300/2.8 L IS on on a FF and 1.3 crop and each lens and each body has its use and purpose but I get awesome quality from any combination and the differences in DOF are indistinguishablein in real life or even while pixel peeping (and editors seldom pixel-peep, that seems to be a sole province of rank amateurs and perpetual whiners...)
Reading mode:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dear canon...
- Thread starter PJSHOOTER
- Start date
Canon will never give you what you are after because they are run by acountants, bean counters and sales execs. I believe Nikon and Minolta of old actually had enthusiasts working for them.Yeah, I havn't posted for ages, just hoping the 1Dmkiv might finally be what I've been after for years!
Perhaps you missunderstood my point. They thought they were getting more 'reach' by cropping in camera than they would by cropping the same image in Photoshop. FYI you don't.
Is the resolution not important at all? Because if I'm not wrong the D3 in cropped mode gives something like 5.3Mp... (and I'm talking about APS-C crop, not to mention 2x which will give 12/4 = 3Mp). Maybe the people work with a better knowledge than you think?'Only children talk shop'??? So, what brings you here then? Did you really post here just to try and tell me im not really a photographer?
Every so often I meet photographers who don't really know their kit very well, have no idea what a cropped sensor is etc. I met some who use the nikon camera that can crop 2x in the camera, i forget the model, and they thought they were getting 2x longer lenses when they used this feature, saying, my 300 becomes a 600 2.8 etc.
L
--
http://www.pbase.com/duca_v2
I don't have a problem with the 7D. My problem is not with the cameras canon make, but rather the cameras that they don't make. They have the technology to make a high speed full frame camera but choose not to, meaning that photographers like me, who would benefit from such a camera, have to make compromises with their photography.
Supposedly, photographers designed the 7D. At least that's what the claim is. =)Canon, design the next camera for photographers, or better yet, let photographers design the next camera.
Remember, because the 7D doesn't suit you, doesn't mean that it won't meet/exceed the demands of many other photographers out there. We would all like cameras designed to our own specific needs.
And we all know that the 7D sensor technology will manifest itself as good or better in full frame. At that point, people will complain about the price.
--
http://www.pbase.com/clknight
Colin
Yes. Yes (judging by D3 sales), It would BE a 1 series camera.
Are you prepared to let go off at least a considerable amount of money for that kind of camera? Is there a lot of people who would want it? Does it justify to Canon to bring this camera out, to satisfy a possible minory and canabilizing the 1 series sales...? Mix that all up with current global economy...and you have your answer.
--
Nature and Landscape Photographer
http://www.pbase.com/jdf
Vibrio
Senior Member
you've inadvertantly posted your letter to canon on dpreview forums. Probably an easy mistake to make but best take your time in future so you actually send it to canon rather than a web forum.
There are some shooters who would like 8fps AND full frame. This means at the same time in the same camera, not simply buying a 1D and a 5D.
I shoot alot of sports, from World Cup football, The Olympics etc to everyday Premiership matches and all the sports snappers I meet say they want full frame, many have already jumped to nikon. The idea that sports snappers want cropped cameras is a myth. A cropped camera has no further reach than a full frame camera of the same pixel density.
Also, cameras are now mini computers, why don't canon make the most of this? Why do we have to choose between TV,AV etc, why can't we make our own settings? Let me explain: Take a full spectrum of exposure, from the darkest to lightest and throughout that spectrum select the mode you want the camera to be in.
For example, at a football match, thats played in the evening as the sun goes down and the floodlights come on... you might decide to start at ISO 400 and F4 and let the shutter speed come down, when it reaches a level you previously selected, say 1000th, it stays there and another setting changes to make the exposure...perhaps you chose the aperture, which then automatically comes down to a level you have chosen, say F3.5...Then you might have decided the aperture should change again, or perhaps the ISO should go up to make the exposure, the camera will follow whatever you preset automatically...
This means the camera will always select what you have decided are the optimum settings for the light level, rather than merely changing just the shutter, or just the aperture...People will then be able to share their favourite settings online too.
I know you can do this in the camera manually, and its possible to do so as the sun goes down, but imagine a game thats played half in the shade half in the sun, its not possible to change the settings fast enough in that situation and you are left with deciding what the minimum shutter speed, or aperture is that you will be happy with, a massive compromise really.
Canon, design the next camera for photographers, or better yet, let photographers design the next camera.
tissunique
Senior Member
The OP has made some valid and interesting points, without rubbishing Canon. let's disregard the 7D (for a moment - it's not built or designed for extensive pro sports work - 150,000 shutter actuations is not enough when a photojournalist can take a couple of thousand images during one soccer match - and needs the extra power and versatality of an inbuilt vert/power grip - and the body needs to be very rugged).
So it's a given that a pro's camera needs to be at the 1D/3D build and durablility level. The OP takes sports pictures, I take 99.9% concert pictures. At this price level it would be interesting for Nikon and Canon to offer firmware biased towards highly specialised fields of work along with these cameras (in addition to the standard firmware/software) especially in scanarios where finite adjustments are just not possible. Concerts, for example. I have a max of 3 songs (increasingly only 2) without a flashgun. I take pictures in artificial and often dreadful lighting. I need WB that automatically adapts accurately - most WB performance on these cameras in artificial light is poor. It's why I have to shoot raw and then takes ages in the processing stage.
Think back to the mind-boggling AF options on the 1D MKIII that had just about everybody confused. With all these options available I stuck mostly to centre point, single shot (and still couldn't get as sharp an image as I got with my old 5D, but that's another topic...) occasionally going to continuous focus.
It seems to me that while Canon and Nikon make great pro level cameras that they both fail to address the common issues faced by pros in the field, i.e. they could make it a little easier and better.
Tony
So it's a given that a pro's camera needs to be at the 1D/3D build and durablility level. The OP takes sports pictures, I take 99.9% concert pictures. At this price level it would be interesting for Nikon and Canon to offer firmware biased towards highly specialised fields of work along with these cameras (in addition to the standard firmware/software) especially in scanarios where finite adjustments are just not possible. Concerts, for example. I have a max of 3 songs (increasingly only 2) without a flashgun. I take pictures in artificial and often dreadful lighting. I need WB that automatically adapts accurately - most WB performance on these cameras in artificial light is poor. It's why I have to shoot raw and then takes ages in the processing stage.
Think back to the mind-boggling AF options on the 1D MKIII that had just about everybody confused. With all these options available I stuck mostly to centre point, single shot (and still couldn't get as sharp an image as I got with my old 5D, but that's another topic...) occasionally going to continuous focus.
It seems to me that while Canon and Nikon make great pro level cameras that they both fail to address the common issues faced by pros in the field, i.e. they could make it a little easier and better.
Tony
tissunique
Senior Member
And the crop image sensor for ros is indeed a fallacy. You only need to see sports coverage to see how many D3s are now being used. Anyway these guys have the full monty of lenses and extenders, they just don't want or need a cropp sensor camera...
Tony
Tony
tissunique
Senior Member
What a limited & blinkered mindset you have...
and you've inadvertantly replied to it. I guess you only like it when everyone holds hands to praise how good canon are.
you've inadvertantly posted your letter to canon on dpreview forums. Probably an easy mistake to make but best take your time in future so you actually send it to canon rather than a web forum.
There are some shooters who would like 8fps AND full frame. This means at the same time in the same camera, not simply buying a 1D and a 5D.
I shoot alot of sports, from World Cup football, The Olympics etc to everyday Premiership matches and all the sports snappers I meet say they want full frame, many have already jumped to nikon. The idea that sports snappers want cropped cameras is a myth. A cropped camera has no further reach than a full frame camera of the same pixel density.
Also, cameras are now mini computers, why don't canon make the most of this? Why do we have to choose between TV,AV etc, why can't we make our own settings? Let me explain: Take a full spectrum of exposure, from the darkest to lightest and throughout that spectrum select the mode you want the camera to be in.
For example, at a football match, thats played in the evening as the sun goes down and the floodlights come on... you might decide to start at ISO 400 and F4 and let the shutter speed come down, when it reaches a level you previously selected, say 1000th, it stays there and another setting changes to make the exposure...perhaps you chose the aperture, which then automatically comes down to a level you have chosen, say F3.5...Then you might have decided the aperture should change again, or perhaps the ISO should go up to make the exposure, the camera will follow whatever you preset automatically...
This means the camera will always select what you have decided are the optimum settings for the light level, rather than merely changing just the shutter, or just the aperture...People will then be able to share their favourite settings online too.
I know you can do this in the camera manually, and its possible to do so as the sun goes down, but imagine a game thats played half in the shade half in the sun, its not possible to change the settings fast enough in that situation and you are left with deciding what the minimum shutter speed, or aperture is that you will be happy with, a massive compromise really.
Canon, design the next camera for photographers, or better yet, let photographers design the next camera.
To the above statement and the example below, Canon could well reply, "Photographers have brains, why can't you make the most of that?"Also, cameras are now mini computers, why don't canon make the most of this?
--For example, at a football match, thats played in the evening as the sun goes down and the floodlights come on... you might decide to start at ISO 400 and F4 and let the shutter speed come down, when it reaches a level you previously selected, say 1000th, it stays there and another setting changes to make the exposure...perhaps you chose the aperture, which then automatically comes down to a level you have chosen, say F3.5...Then you might have decided the aperture should change again, or perhaps the ISO should go up to make the exposure, the camera will follow whatever you preset automatically...
http://www.pbase.com/clknight
Colin
Christer Fredriksson
Active member
Yes we probably will because CANON is playing a very foul game!
MARKETING SEGMENTATION seems to be their only mantra these days!
MARKETING SEGMENTATION seems to be their only mantra these days!
The digital market is still growing, we can only hope for more competition to make them move on faster ...
More expensive ? who would have bought the first computer now that almost everyone can afford, I believe rather in cheaper more performing cameras with more brains, no need to learn high tech to handle, the high tech should be within what is called user friendly, same way as PC's evolved.
Probably the camera-makers have the technology already, who will step on their tail ?
The eye sees only a small part of the image in focus, the rest is interpolated in our brain. Move your head, you got the impression all becomes blurred ? IS a small answer. Look into the sun, does all surroundings become black ? HDR, bracketing the answer while a controlled sensitivity of each pixel(area) will require a lot more brain.
In short, lucky that we take a picture with our eyes, a tool only to translate it in a photo to manipulate up to what you saw and felt. So we can only hope for a lot more competitions to get better tools to translate a photo even more accurate to what we saw.
Let's hope, we don't make the competition , camera-builders do.
All is possible, 1DS with even bigger sensors then FF at lesser price ? Reason to start with cheaper smaller censors better selling to discover new boundaries.
Competitions between camera builders is what we really want, competition beteen consumers seldom have pushed them.
More expensive ? who would have bought the first computer now that almost everyone can afford, I believe rather in cheaper more performing cameras with more brains, no need to learn high tech to handle, the high tech should be within what is called user friendly, same way as PC's evolved.
Probably the camera-makers have the technology already, who will step on their tail ?
The eye sees only a small part of the image in focus, the rest is interpolated in our brain. Move your head, you got the impression all becomes blurred ? IS a small answer. Look into the sun, does all surroundings become black ? HDR, bracketing the answer while a controlled sensitivity of each pixel(area) will require a lot more brain.
In short, lucky that we take a picture with our eyes, a tool only to translate it in a photo to manipulate up to what you saw and felt. So we can only hope for a lot more competitions to get better tools to translate a photo even more accurate to what we saw.
Let's hope, we don't make the competition , camera-builders do.
All is possible, 1DS with even bigger sensors then FF at lesser price ? Reason to start with cheaper smaller censors better selling to discover new boundaries.
Competitions between camera builders is what we really want, competition beteen consumers seldom have pushed them.
That would work if canon was the only camera manufacturer. Fortunately they aren't, so they have to compete.
To the above statement and the example below, Canon could well reply, "Photographers have brains, why can't you make the most of that?"Also, cameras are now mini computers, why don't canon make the most of this?
--For example, at a football match, thats played in the evening as the sun goes down and the floodlights come on... you might decide to start at ISO 400 and F4 and let the shutter speed come down, when it reaches a level you previously selected, say 1000th, it stays there and another setting changes to make the exposure...perhaps you chose the aperture, which then automatically comes down to a level you have chosen, say F3.5...Then you might have decided the aperture should change again, or perhaps the ISO should go up to make the exposure, the camera will follow whatever you preset automatically...
http://www.pbase.com/clknight
Colin
all camera companies do it .. or each company would only have 1 camera for sale.Yes we probably will because CANON is playing a very foul game!
MARKETING SEGMENTATION seems to be their only mantra these days!
mulder1361
Forum Enthusiast
It amazes myself that if you go too the N pro camera site. Almost no complaining anout product. Here it is never ending. Look at lawdogs, work of the USC game. Its the person behind the tool. Yes here has great Canon gear. He simple knows the art of photograhy. Mulder
replace the brain of the photographer?
I believe that people will either complain that the technology isn't there, or complain, as you are, that the technology isn't being applied like they want it.
It seems wise to let the manufacturers give us the best technology they can, and let us apply it. You're asking for a kind of advanced point-and-shoot approach to DSLR photography.
Couldn't the scenario you described be accomplished in Manual mode with auto ISO and some simple, occasional tweaking on shutter speed? As the light decreases, ISO comes up and you can use your shutter to ensure balance stopping the action and aperture.
Just a thought.
--
http://www.pbase.com/clknight
Colin
I believe that people will either complain that the technology isn't there, or complain, as you are, that the technology isn't being applied like they want it.
It seems wise to let the manufacturers give us the best technology they can, and let us apply it. You're asking for a kind of advanced point-and-shoot approach to DSLR photography.
Couldn't the scenario you described be accomplished in Manual mode with auto ISO and some simple, occasional tweaking on shutter speed? As the light decreases, ISO comes up and you can use your shutter to ensure balance stopping the action and aperture.
Just a thought.
--
http://www.pbase.com/clknight
Colin
caveat is on the "same pixel density" .. which in the case of full frame to cropped is rarely the case. 1D Mark III is 16Mp equiv FF pixel density, as an example. the technology even today doesn't exist to drive that at 10fps .. so crop also allows for a faster fps than the equivalent pixel density FF.There are some shooters who would like 8fps AND full frame. This means at the same time in the same camera, not simply buying a 1D and a 5D.
I shoot alot of sports, from World Cup football, The Olympics etc to everyday Premiership matches and all the sports snappers I meet say they want full frame, many have already jumped to nikon. The idea that sports snappers want cropped cameras is a myth. A cropped camera has no further reach than a full frame camera of the same pixel density.
in the case of the 1D .. it's all about speed and matched with a good pixel density, which in this case it's the compromise between the two.
1.3 crop factor in reality doesn't change much from a DOF standpoint, nor a field of view in practicality ..
in any sort of pixel gains, it's probably safe to assume that the 1D will be around 15Mp on a APS-H sized format .. which would be akin to a 25Mp FF sensor .. for someone that is "geared" to always hot to trot it out as fast fps .. you're reducing the viewfinder FOV by that factor of 1.3 on a continual basis.
and you're still left with the same DOF, etc as the aps-h anyways to achieve the fast framerates.
as far as changing the 1D to FF .. you do lose if you just simply came out with a 15Mp FF from the 1D Mark III ... there will be a definate disadvantage in the same line series.
whereas in reality .. nikon increased their pixel density from d2 to d3.. their D2Hs was amusingly only 4.3Mp. So from their aspect the "step up" worked.
the same wouldn't occur on the 1D series lineup. in alot of cases, going to full frame would also cause the pixel density to decrease .. which simply wouldn't be a good idea. even from a "photographer" aspect.
neat idea ...Also, cameras are now mini computers, why don't canon make the most of this? Why do we have to choose between TV,AV etc, why can't we make our own settings? Let me explain: Take a full spectrum of exposure, from the darkest to lightest and throughout that spectrum select the mode you want the camera to be in.
I'd even add to that .. allow us to choose how to "auto bracket" .. instead of straight linear calculations .. allow us to create bracketting profiles. (ie: register this setting to -n position of AEB, register these settings to +n AEB and so on)
or add into the cameras script writing capabilities to allow us to write and develop our own scripts based upon what we want.
being in software development, there's also a careful balance between "features" and "usability" ... where if you shove enough features into the camera .. setting it up .. becomes a more burdensome task .. so there's that to consider.
Doesnt work when its played half in sunshine, half shadow.
replace the brain of the photographer?
I believe that people will either complain that the technology isn't there, or complain, as you are, that the technology isn't being applied like they want it.
It seems wise to let the manufacturers give us the best technology they can, and let us apply it. You're asking for a kind of advanced point-and-shoot approach to DSLR photography.
Couldn't the scenario you described be accomplished in Manual mode with auto ISO and some simple, occasional tweaking on shutter speed? As the light decreases, ISO comes up and you can use your shutter to ensure balance stopping the action and aperture.
Just a thought.
--
http://www.pbase.com/clknight
Colin
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
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.
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.