A new hope with G7x wide angle performance

Steven Wandy said:

But let's be honest here, true "landscape photographers" would not be shooting with either of these cameras. The detail that they need in their shots - especially if printing at a decently large size - cannot really be accomplished with any small sensor camera. Even the 4/3 sensors - which I happen to be a big fan of - and are what 4 times as large as these, really don't do that type of detail well enough.

Click to expand...

Like many other photographers, some landscapers want a small camera to always have with them; you can't lug your DSLR gear everywhere, if only because it can be socially unacceptable. I don't think most people are buying these compacts as a primary camera, especially not for landscape and architecture. Even though these are small sensors, the quality difference between e.g. a Sony RX100-3 and my Canon 450D DSLR with 15-85IS lens is pretty small as long as there is decent light.

Why are people photographers shooting with G7X, wouldn't a DSLR (with its better DOF control, better feedback, faster operation etc.) be better there as well?

P.S: m43 sensor is 4 times as large as a 1 inch sensor?? You should read up on the subject because you are totally wrong. LX100 can hardly keep up with the 1 inch Sony sensors ...

Steven Wandy said:

I don't understand why people feel that they need ultimate sharpness "edge to edge" from these smaller cameras. Aren't they generally putting their prime subject more towards the middle?

Click to expand...

in landscape photography there usually is not a 'prime subject' that one puts in the middle.

Steven Wandy said:

Yes, that "edge to edge" sharpness might technically be a good indication of how good the lens is, but IMHO these cameras are not really suited for that purpose (landscape photography).

Click to expand...

Landscape photographers want good detail into the corners because of the way viewers look at a landscape image, and because most landscapes have relevant details right into the corners (unlike the average people / street photography shot). This has nothing to do with 'measurebating', people/event shooters simply have very different requirements.

Steven Wandy said:

But let's be honest here, true "landscape photographers" would not be shooting with either of these cameras. The detail that they need in their shots - especially if printing at a decently large size - cannot really be accomplished with any small sensor camera. Even the 4/3 sensors - which I happen to be a big fan of - and are what 4 times as large as these, really don't do that type of detail well enough.

Click to expand...

What is a true "landscape photographer" ?
A large printer ?
I’m using Powershots during walking and I make landscapes images :
Carrying a Canon 5DM2/3 with a 24 TS-E (which I have) is no option.


I get decent prints on A2 but would like better corner performance as well.
BTW all Powershots have the same problems at WA.
I’m editing some older work from the G9 and G10 and corner results are similar from what I see from the G7X images and my S100.


However the G7X is still on my list because of the ergonomics and DPP support ;-)

Steven Wandy said:

jonrobertp said:

By the # of ppl who actually use Canon vs Sony....you can rest assured that Canon is best and the rest may be close and innovative to a point but mostly, like the opposition in a government, they thrive at harsh criticism.

Click to expand...

I assume (without really knowing you) that this comment was meant to be sarcastic? Because the assumption that Canon cameras must be better than Sony just because more people use them might be stretching trust in the brand a bit.

I think that more people use Canon because of their much more lengthy history in photography and cameras and because a lot of people view Sony as a "technology" company rather than a "camera" company. (Sort of like my opinion of Panasonic.)

Click to expand...

That's not why I am buying a canon camera at all, I couldn't care how long a company has been around or whether it is a big seller. See my first message above in this thread, I am buying the canon pocket cameras because of the in camera jpg processor with its fine adjustability, most cameras I have owned are nowhere near as good as the DIGIC processor, and judging by the color I see from the RX1xx series, sony has a lot of work to do in this area.

Brian

technic said:

Steven Wandy said:

But let's be honest here, true "landscape photographers" would not be shooting with either of these cameras. The detail that they need in their shots - especially if printing at a decently large size - cannot really be accomplished with any small sensor camera. Even the 4/3 sensors - which I happen to be a big fan of - and are what 4 times as large as these, really don't do that type of detail well enough.

Click to expand...

Like many other photographers, some landscapers want a small camera to always have with them; you can't lug your DSLR gear everywhere, if only because it can be socially unacceptable. I don't think most people are buying these compacts as a primary camera, especially not for landscape and architecture. Even though these are small sensors, the quality difference between e.g. a Sony RX100-3 and my Canon 450D DSLR with 15-85IS lens is pretty small as long as there is decent light.

Click to expand...

OK - so we are comparing a new camera with a newly developed lens/sensor to a camera that is what 6 years old? Not surprising that the smaller camera can keep up in decent light.

technic said:

Why are people photographers shooting with G7X, wouldn't a DSLR (with its better DOF control, better feedback, faster operation etc.) be better there as well?

Click to expand...

Yes it would. But as you said, the idea of a small capable camera is the idea behind I would think a lot of the G7X purchases - it certainly was behind mine. But I still would not expect it to do great landscapes.

technic said:

P.S: m43 sensor is 4 times as large as a 1 inch sensor?? You should read up on the subject because you are totally wrong. LX100 can hardly keep up with the 1 inch Sony sensors ...

Click to expand...

1 - you are right, I was confusing the 1" sensor with the smaller 1/2.3 ones. The 4/3 sensor probably only has twice the area.

As far as the LX100 - while I have not studied any direct comparisons (was not interested in either camera), the LX100, while using a 4/3 sensor never uses the entire sensor area. It uses - depending on the format - much less than the full resolution of the sensor.

technic said:

technic said:

I don't understand why people feel that they need ultimate sharpness "edge to edge" from these smaller cameras. Aren't they generally putting their prime subject more towards the middle?

Click to expand...

in landscape photography there usually is not a 'prime subject' that one puts in the middle.

Click to expand...

technic said:

technic said:

Yes, that "edge to edge" sharpness might technically be a good indication of how good the lens is, but IMHO these cameras are not really suited for that purpose (landscape photography).

Click to expand...

Landscape photographers want good detail into the corners because of the way viewers look at a landscape image, and because most landscapes have relevant details right into the corners (unlike the average people / street photography shot). This has nothing to do with 'measurebating', people/event shooters simply have very different requirements.

Click to expand...

Agreed about the different needs, but I still don't see someone who is taking serious landscape photos (meaning large enlargements of the shots, not just some travel pics to put in an album or on Facebook) depending on a smaller sensor, P&S camera.

brianj said:

Steven Wandy said:

jonrobertp said:

By the # of ppl who actually use Canon vs Sony....you can rest assured that Canon is best and the rest may be close and innovative to a point but mostly, like the opposition in a government, they thrive at harsh criticism.

Click to expand...

I assume (without really knowing you) that this comment was meant to be sarcastic? Because the assumption that Canon cameras must be better than Sony just because more people use them might be stretching trust in the brand a bit.

I think that more people use Canon because of their much more lengthy history in photography and cameras and because a lot of people view Sony as a "technology" company rather than a "camera" company. (Sort of like my opinion of Panasonic.)

Click to expand...

That's not why I am buying a canon camera at all, I couldn't care how long a company has been around or whether it is a big seller. See my first message above in this thread, I am buying the canon pocket cameras because of the in camera jpg processor with its fine adjustability, most cameras I have owned are nowhere near as good as the DIGIC processor, and judging by the color I see from the RX1xx series, sony has a lot of work to do in this area.

Brian

Click to expand...

My comment was not directed at everyone - I can assure you that I did not get the G7X because it said "Canon" on it (all my cameras for the past 7 or 8 years have said "Olympus"). My point was based upon the comment by Jonrobertp which sort of states that Canon cameras must be better than Sony because more people use them.

Steven Wandy said:

technic said:

Altruisto said:

What do you think of the landscape shots at f1.8. Are they any better than what you used to from your own g7x? I quite find the corners decent (despite the artefacts).

Click to expand...

The detail is probably sufficient for most users, but I don't think serious landscape photographers would be happy with it. If you check what quality you can get with RX100-3 at f/2.8 24-28mm it is disappointing IMHO. The G7X shots are mushy at 100% and only give the impression of good detail because of the aggressive sharpening; RX100-3 is really sharp at 100% and it looks very natural, without artifacts and noise. I don't think these G7X images are much better than what I would get with a Canon S110 at 24mm equiv. (with the G7X images downscaled to 12 MP).

If f/1.8 is important to you because of low light shooting etc. maybe that could lead to a different conclusion; I haven't checked enough RX100-3 shots to judge its image quality full open, and G7X is 1/3-2/3 stop brighter to begin with in most of the WA range and probably has better IS as well. But for landscape style shooting usually there is sufficient light for stopping down 1-2 stops for best optical quality (= less in-camera corrections required because of lower vignetting etc., which means less artifacts).

Click to expand...

Have the G7X and never shot with a Sony camera since the original Mavica (remember the floppy disk drives in those).

But let's be honest here, true "landscape photographers" would not be shooting with either of these cameras. The detail that they need in their shots - especially if printing at a decently large size - cannot really be accomplished with any small sensor camera. Even the 4/3 sensors - which I happen to be a big fan of - and are what 4 times as large as these, really don't do that type of detail well enough.

I don't understand why people feel that they need ultimate sharpness "edge to edge" from these smaller cameras. Aren't they generally putting their prime subject more towards the middle? Yes, that "edge to edge" sharpness might technically be a good indication of how good the lens is, but IMHO these cameras are not really suited for that purpose (landscape photography).

Click to expand...

How refreshing to hear some common sense.

brianj said:

Steven Wandy said:

jonrobertp said:

By the # of ppl who actually use Canon vs Sony....you can rest assured that Canon is best and the rest may be close and innovative to a point but mostly, like the opposition in a government, they thrive at harsh criticism.

Click to expand...

I assume (without really knowing you) that this comment was meant to be sarcastic? Because the assumption that Canon cameras must be better than Sony just because more people use them might be stretching trust in the brand a bit.

I think that more people use Canon because of their much more lengthy history in photography and cameras and because a lot of people view Sony as a "technology" company rather than a "camera" company. (Sort of like my opinion of Panasonic.)

Click to expand...

That's not why I am buying a canon camera at all, I couldn't care how long a company has been around or whether it is a big seller. See my first message above in this thread, I am buying the canon pocket cameras because of the in camera jpg processor with its fine adjustability, most cameras I have owned are nowhere near as good as the DIGIC processor, and judging by the color I see from the RX1xx series, sony has a lot of work to do in this area.

Brian

Click to expand...

Hear hear

Steven Wandy said:

brianj said:

Steven Wandy said:

jonrobertp said:

By the # of ppl who actually use Canon vs Sony....you can rest assured that Canon is best and the rest may be close and innovative to a point but mostly, like the opposition in a government, they thrive at harsh criticism.

Click to expand...

I assume (without really knowing you) that this comment was meant to be sarcastic? Because the assumption that Canon cameras must be better than Sony just because more people use them might be stretching trust in the brand a bit.

I think that more people use Canon because of their much more lengthy history in photography and cameras and because a lot of people view Sony as a "technology" company rather than a "camera" company. (Sort of like my opinion of Panasonic.)

Click to expand...

That's not why I am buying a canon camera at all, I couldn't care how long a company has been around or whether it is a big seller. See my first message above in this thread, I am buying the canon pocket cameras because of the in camera jpg processor with its fine adjustability, most cameras I have owned are nowhere near as good as the DIGIC processor, and judging by the color I see from the RX1xx series, sony has a lot of work to do in this area.

Brian

Click to expand...

My comment was not directed at everyone - I can assure you that I did not get the G7X because it said "Canon" on it (all my cameras for the past 7 or 8 years have said "Olympus"). My point was based upon the comment by Jonrobertp which sort of states that Canon cameras must be better than Sony because more people use them.

Click to expand...

Canon is the best choice for all who chose to use that brand.

Lets face it. Canon has the magic. At least some of it. I shoot Canon, and I hate it. It underperforms in certain aspects for what it is, it doesn't handle that good, and so on. I always buy canon, because of color output, style of their products, usually perfect, flawless features. These are very few compared to other brand products but it works seamlessly for me. Not so with other brands I tried. They rely on this magic. And good price of course. Otherwise there would be nobody to buy their featureless products with poor sensors. There is no other explanation! Especially not for consumer products. I want Canon to leave this magic approach, but the need to do something else.

For judging what product is good it is not that simple to mark it with single score number. As long as the camera can deliver something rellevant and other cameras can not do that in relevant circumstances, it definitely has its place, no matter how low in the score table is it possitioned, and how much poisoned it is by forum bashers.
Canon delivered bright lens with good zoom range for good price, so there will be people who love this product. Canon delivered even bigger sensored compact cam, so people will love it. Canon delivered EOS 600D for lowest price at times, so people loved it and bought it. They delivered small mirrorles with APS-C sensor, with awesome cheap lenses, all for very nice.money lately so there are people who love it. Is there anything else for the price?
And so on. So on with other brands. That's exactly why we buy it! That way If one doesn't like another product, he doesn't buy it. No need to bash it further. We know you don't like Canon that much If you hold sony cam in your hands. That's cool, but be tollerant, keep it civil...

Steven Wandy said:

technic said:

Steven Wandy said:

But let's be honest here, true "landscape photographers" would not be shooting with either of these cameras. The detail that they need in their shots - especially if printing at a decently large size - cannot really be accomplished with any small sensor camera. Even the 4/3 sensors - which I happen to be a big fan of - and are what 4 times as large as these, really don't do that type of detail well enough.

Click to expand...

Like many other photographers, some landscapers want a small camera to always have with them; you can't lug your DSLR gear everywhere, if only because it can be socially unacceptable. I don't think most people are buying these compacts as a primary camera, especially not for landscape and architecture. Even though these are small sensors, the quality difference between e.g. a Sony RX100-3 and my Canon 450D DSLR with 15-85IS lens is pretty small as long as there is decent light.

Click to expand...

OK - so we are comparing a new camera with a newly developed lens/sensor to a camera that is what 6 years old? Not surprising that the smaller camera can keep up in decent light.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, for Canon DSLRs 6 years old is almost current technology. Look at the facts, even the latest DSLRs have just 1/3-2/3 stop improvement in noise and DR (in RAW) and 50% higher resolution (which is nice but not the most important factor for me). Most of the improvement in DSLRs over the last 5-7 years comes from better in-camera processing.

Steven Wandy said:

Steven Wandy said:

Why are people photographers shooting with G7X, wouldn't a DSLR (with its better DOF control, better feedback, faster operation etc.) be better there as well?

Click to expand...

Yes it would. But as you said, the idea of a small capable camera is the idea behind I would think a lot of the G7X purchases - it certainly was behind mine. But I still would not expect it to do great landscapes.

Click to expand...

Agree, not great but good enough.

If I think I have the opportunity to take some great landscape shots I would always take the DSLR with some lenses. And I think the same applies for people/event shots because e.g. the DSLR would probably allow better timing of the shot, fast AF and better DOF control than most compacts. But there too the fact that you can always have it with you can be more important.

Steven Wandy said:

Steven Wandy said:

P.S: m43 sensor is 4 times as large as a 1 inch sensor?? You should read up on the subject because you are totally wrong. LX100 can hardly keep up with the 1 inch Sony sensors ...

Click to expand...

1 - you are right, I was confusing the 1" sensor with the smaller 1/2.3 ones. The 4/3 sensor probably only has twice the area.

As far as the LX100 - while I have not studied any direct comparisons (was not interested in either camera), the LX100, while using a 4/3 sensor never uses the entire sensor area. It uses - depending on the format - much less than the full resolution of the sensor.

Click to expand...

Yes, m43 sensor is about twice the size of the Sony 1" sensor but a bit older technology; that is why they are pretty close in real life performance. LX100 has about 40% more sensor area than the Sony 1 inch sensor, and in reality the performance of the two is very close (and obviously lower when it comes to fine detail). And really, the difference between the Sony 1" sensor and Canon APS-C sensors is small except in low light, just look at the DXO scores (despite the flaws, that is a pretty good indication).

Steven Wandy said:

Steven Wandy said:

Steven Wandy said:

I don't understand why people feel that they need ultimate sharpness "edge to edge" from these smaller cameras. Aren't they generally putting their prime subject more towards the middle?

Click to expand...

in landscape photography there usually is not a 'prime subject' that one puts in the middle.

Steven Wandy said:

Yes, that "edge to edge" sharpness might technically be a good indication of how good the lens is, but IMHO these cameras are not really suited for that purpose (landscape photography).

Click to expand...

Landscape photographers want good detail into the corners because of the way viewers look at a landscape image, and because most landscapes have relevant details right into the corners (unlike the average people / street photography shot). This has nothing to do with 'measurebating', people/event shooters simply have very different requirements.

Click to expand...

Agreed about the different needs, but I still don't see someone who is taking serious landscape photos (meaning large enlargements of the shots, not just some travel pics to put in an album or on Facebook) depending on a smaller sensor, P&S camera.

Click to expand...

Depending on the smaller sensor, but only when the DSLR is too big ;-) Landscape photographyif difficult to plan, weather and lighting is a major factor and there are always unexpected opportunities. That is where such a carry-always camera has its value.

I tried the Canon S110 as a 'walkaround' camera but it came up short, mainly because of the too strong in-camera corrections that create artifacts and other issues at the borders/corners in the WA range. With the G7X I see basically the same problem, but worse. Outside the WA range the S110 was good enough for me, but the slow lens and lack of tilt screen were a practical problem. G7X offers a lot of improvements over S110 but WA image quality is not one of them, and that is one of the most important factors for me in choosing such a camera.

crashpc said:

Lets face it. Canon has the magic. At least some of it. I shoot Canon, and I hate it. It underperforms in certain aspects for what it is, it doesn't handle that good, and so on. I always buy canon, because of color output, style of their products, usually perfect, flawless features. These are very few compared to other brand products but it works seamlessly for me. Not so with other brands I tried. They rely on this magic. And good price of course. Otherwise there would be nobody to buy their featureless products with poor sensors. There is no other explanation! Especially not for consumer products. I want Canon to leave this magic approach, but the need to do something else.

Click to expand...

Mostly agree about that, despite my criticism of some current Canon products; of course, otherwise I would not be using Canon DSLRs and lenses ;-)

They are conservative and have gotten a lot of things right; in many ways you know what you get with a Canon camera. Other companies are more hit-and-miss. I did use cameras from Sony and Olympus longer ago that were very good though, maybe not as 'polished' as the average Canon but definitely far ahead on some other points. I see the same now, Sony is pushing technology to the edge and they can because they have less 'legacy' to protect; you can take more chances with such compacts than e.g. with a DSLR lens line. Sony technology is often ahead of Canon, but that doesn't make it a better camera as that depends on many other factors.

technic said:

Steven Wandy said:

technic said:

Steven Wandy said:

But let's be honest here, true "landscape photographers" would not be shooting with either of these cameras. The detail that they need in their shots - especially if printing at a decently large size - cannot really be accomplished with any small sensor camera. Even the 4/3 sensors - which I happen to be a big fan of - and are what 4 times as large as these, really don't do that type of detail well enough.

Click to expand...

Like many other photographers, some landscapers want a small camera to always have with them; you can't lug your DSLR gear everywhere, if only because it can be socially unacceptable. I don't think most people are buying these compacts as a primary camera, especially not for landscape and architecture. Even though these are small sensors, the quality difference between e.g. a Sony RX100-3 and my Canon 450D DSLR with 15-85IS lens is pretty small as long as there is decent light.

Click to expand...

OK - so we are comparing a new camera with a newly developed lens/sensor to a camera that is what 6 years old? Not surprising that the smaller camera can keep up in decent light.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, for Canon DSLRs 6 years old is almost current technology. Look at the facts, even the latest DSLRs have just 1/3-2/3 stop improvement in noise and DR (in RAW) and 50% higher resolution (which is nice but not the most important factor for me). Most of the improvement in DSLRs over the last 5-7 years comes from better in-camera processing.

Click to expand...

You can change resolution for noise as much as You want. That way you are dealing with full one stop of advantage for not so high price (How much IS EOS 600D/100D/M...)

technic said:

Yes, m43 sensor is about twice the size of the Sony 1" sensor but a bit older technology; that is why they are pretty close in real life performance. LX100 has about 40% more sensor area than the Sony 1 inch sensor, and in reality the performance of the two is very close (and obviously lower when it comes to fine detail). And really, the difference between the Sony 1" sensor and Canon APS-C sensors is small except in low light, just look at the DXO scores (despite the flaws, that is a pretty good indication).

Click to expand...

Yes, it helped Sony a lot, to have greater resolution sensor. But we´re not comparing equal things. That´s cool, we need to compare real things. Now you mentioned Canon APS-C, but it is not only sensor. It is also (mainly) the lens. I believe we can arrange a situation where RX100 will be visibly worse. Some situation somebody want´s to be in very often.

And while EOS M + EF 50mm f/1.4 setup cost me only 2/3 price of Sony RX100 III, providing much better results in aspects I need , you cannot mark single cam as generally better. There are qualities to almost every model.

technic said:

technic said:

technic said:

technic said:

I don't understand why people feel that they need ultimate sharpness "edge to edge" from these smaller cameras. Aren't they generally putting their prime subject more towards the middle?

Click to expand...

in landscape photography there usually is not a 'prime subject' that one puts in the middle.

technic said:

Yes, that "edge to edge" sharpness might technically be a good indication of how good the lens is, but IMHO these cameras are not really suited for that purpose (landscape photography).

Click to expand...

Landscape photographers want good detail into the corners because of the way viewers look at a landscape image, and because most landscapes have relevant details right into the corners (unlike the average people / street photography shot). This has nothing to do with 'measurebating', people/event shooters simply have very different requirements.

Click to expand...

Agreed about the different needs, but I still don't see someone who is taking serious landscape photos (meaning large enlargements of the shots, not just some travel pics to put in an album or on Facebook) depending on a smaller sensor, P&S camera.

Click to expand...

Depending on the smaller sensor, but only when the DSLR is too big ;-) Landscape photographyif difficult to plan, weather and lighting is a major factor and there are always unexpected opportunities. That is where such a carry-always camera has its value.

I tried the Canon S110 as a 'walkaround' camera but it came up short, mainly because of the too strong in-camera corrections that create artifacts and other issues at the borders/corners in the WA range. With the G7X I see basically the same problem, but worse. Outside the WA range the S110 was good enough for me, but the slow lens and lack of tilt screen were a practical problem. G7X offers a lot of improvements over S110 but WA image quality is not one of them, and that is one of the most important factors for me in choosing such a camera.

Click to expand...

Yes, I see some flaws too. That´s why I´m waiting for another iteration of Canon big sensored cam

crashpc said:

crashpc said:

Unfortunately, for Canon DSLRs 6 years old is almost current technology. Look at the facts, even the latest DSLRs have just 1/3-2/3 stop improvement in noise and DR (in RAW) and 50% higher resolution (which is nice but not the most important factor for me). Most of the improvement in DSLRs over the last 5-7 years comes from better in-camera processing.

Click to expand...

You can change resolution for noise as much as You want. That way you are dealing with full one stop of advantage for not so high price (How much IS EOS 600D/100D/M...)

Click to expand...

I'm not judging noise at the pixel level; even downsampled to the 12 MP of my 450D the current 600-700D and 100D cameras are not much better. There is some improvement in IQ but you really have to look for it; getting the exposure right and using the best lenses is a far bigger factor for image quality in this case.

The main thing I'm looking for now for the DSLR is better low ISO DR, a tilt screen and more accurate AF than my current camera (which means either MFA or an ILC like the EOS-M series). I could use better High ISO noise performance for my macro shots, but for landscape I don't need it. And the camera must be small and light; like other landscape photographers I'm looking for a Sony A7/A9 type camera with EOS mount ;-)

technic said:

crashpc said:

technic said:

Unfortunately, for Canon DSLRs 6 years old is almost current technology. Look at the facts, even the latest DSLRs have just 1/3-2/3 stop improvement in noise and DR (in RAW) and 50% higher resolution (which is nice but not the most important factor for me). Most of the improvement in DSLRs over the last 5-7 years comes from better in-camera processing.

Click to expand...

You can change resolution for noise as much as You want. That way you are dealing with full one stop of advantage for not so high price (How much IS EOS 600D/100D/M...)

Click to expand...

I'm not judging noise at the pixel level; even downsampled to the 12 MP of my 450D the current 600-700D and 100D cameras are not much better. There is some improvement in IQ but you really have to look for it; getting the exposure right and using the best lenses is a far bigger factor for image quality in this case.

Click to expand...

Of course, but it is still there, it is valid, and mainly it is usually cheaper difference (sensor) than difference between better lenses. So it is worth to consider it.

technic said:

The main thing I'm looking for now for the DSLR is better low ISO DR, a tilt screen and more accurate AF than my current camera (which means either MFA or an ILC like the EOS-M series).

Click to expand...

I think we´re on the same boat here.

technic said:

I could use better High ISO noise performance for my macro shots, but for landscape I don't need it. And the camera must be small and light; like other landscape photographers I'm looking for a Sony A7/A9 type camera with EOS mount ;-)

Click to expand...

Yes. EOS M3 with best EVF ever seen, and new 32Mpx sensor with best DR characteristics. Cash waiting! And my prime lenses too!

technic said:

crashpc said:

Lets face it. Canon has the magic. At least some of it. I shoot Canon, and I hate it. It underperforms in certain aspects for what it is, it doesn't handle that good, and so on. I always buy canon, because of color output, style of their products, usually perfect, flawless features. These are very few compared to other brand products but it works seamlessly for me. Not so with other brands I tried. They rely on this magic. And good price of course. Otherwise there would be nobody to buy their featureless products with poor sensors. There is no other explanation! Especially not for consumer products. I want Canon to leave this magic approach, but the need to do something else.

Click to expand...

Mostly agree about that, despite my criticism of some current Canon products; of course, otherwise I would not be using Canon DSLRs and lenses ;-)

They are conservative and have gotten a lot of things right; in many ways you know what you get with a Canon camera. Other companies are more hit-and-miss. I did use cameras from Sony and Olympus longer ago that were very good though, maybe not as 'polished' as the average Canon but definitely far ahead on some other points. I see the same now, Sony is pushing technology to the edge and they can because they have less 'legacy' to protect; you can take more chances with such compacts than e.g. with a DSLR lens line. Sony technology is often ahead of Canon, but that doesn't make it a better camera as that depends on many other factors.

Click to expand...

Unrelated question: why don't you have a better DSLRs body to go with your lenses ?

Just wondering.