There are as many people who prefer more compact A7x bodies as there are people who prefer bigger Canon bodies.
Sony FE has way more lenses than Canon RF. What lens is the system missing?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How does Canon get away with it?
Sony FE has way more lenses than Canon RF. What lens is the system missing?
You are thinking in numbers, other people don't.
Neither way is right or wrong, it just is.
When I sold cameras my customers had all kinds of reasons why they bought what they did.
That is why it isn't hard at all for me to understand that others may not pick my reason for choosing what I have. ( and that is not Canon, BTW...)
Besides I played with, bought and shot with a lot of different brands so no I don't get upset that there are people that don't choose what I do.
Paul B Jones
Veteran Member
So?
Canons can use EF-mount lenses, such as the 8-15/4L zoom fisheye, which is my third most-used lens. I also have an 18-135nano-USM with the power-zoom attachment for video. Does Sony make a power-zoom lens?
--
Lee Jay
Last edited:
New Day Rising
Veteran Member
Ilfotografo
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 198
One can describe the way helens attaches, but one cannot assign an objective measure of merit. It is difficult to describe handling, at all. And so on
Not sure why. They sell more cameras and lenses without Sony.
Sure you can. You want to turn this into an esoteric thing but it’s not. The minute you go there, you’re branding yourself foolish.
Ilfotografo
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 198
It's not an "esoteric thing, it's matter of personal presence and taste, pure and simple. And when you get down to it, even the evaluation of "lens sharpness" involves a lot of subjectivity. Carl Zeiss and Ernst Leitz had different opinions about what was "sharp".
That's why people buy what they do, and that's why Canon "gets away with" whatever "it" is.
rochester21
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,082
- Reaction score
- 1,071
rochester21
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,082
- Reaction score
- 1,071
1. They are right. It is the photographer. I still love their(former?) motto: "You can. Canon". Also, my most memorable photos were taken 14 years ago with a crappy compact. That's just the way it is, a camera doesn't work by itself. Now i have access to amazing cameras, but i'm a lot less excited by photography now, so my pictures are less inspiring. It's not the camera, it's me.
2. Never heard of any canon "apostle". Nikon had those. When i bought my first dslr i chose canon simply because it was a well known brand and nikon cameras were more expensive. If i had more experience i would have bought an olympus, but realistically my pictures would have looked largely the same regardless of the brand.
Cameras stopped being a barrier to creativity a very long time ago. It don't matter what brand you choose. I dislike nikon, but that doesn't mean i can't take good pics with a nikon. It's just a lot harder to do it, that's all
true but at the same time, for the non pro photographers, one is more like to pick up a camera and to go and take some photos if one does really like using that camera* .Cameras stopped being a barrier to creativity a very long time ago. It don't matter what brand you choose. I dislike nikon, but that doesn't mean i can't take good pics with a nikon. It's just a lot harder to do it, that's all
The same way I am more like to get a higher mileage (literally) from shoes I like to wear.
* I think that is the major reason some are in love with their Leica and others simply don't understand what is all about.
golfhov
Forum Pro
I dunno about that. Tools*..... If you don't need it then don't bother. If the tools aid in your creation then enjoy.trueCameras stopped being a barrier to creativity a very long time ago. It don't matter what brand you choose. I dislike nikon, but that doesn't mean i can't take good pics with a nikon. It's just a lot harder to do it, that's all
*"Tools" is my word of the day. Tomorrow it is covfefe
That is an interesting observation. Look if that abstract connection with inanimate objects brings one pleasure then I encourage them to enjoy themselves. It is a very hard concept to try and espouse to others as a reason one should buy into a system.
I have fight club rules in place for Leica. What is the first rule of leice club?
R
Rock and hard place
Guest
They aren't right at all--not by a long shot! How good the camera is has a direct bearing on the photographer's inclination to use it, on the manner in which it and its images are used, and by extension, how good the images end up being.
Canon DSLR users' PP skills are almost as atrophied as Nikon DSLR users' video skills. Why?
It's a negative feedback spiral.
The fact is some cameras present higher barriers than others. It's no different than the concept of activation energy in chemistry.
2. Never heard of any canon "apostle". Nikon had those. When i bought my first dslr i chose canon simply because it was a well known brand and nikon cameras were more expensive. If i had more experience i would have bought an olympus, but realistically my pictures would have looked largely the same regardless of the brand.
Cameras stopped being a barrier to creativity a very long time ago. It don't matter what brand you choose. I dislike nikon, but that doesn't mean i can't take good pics with a nikon. It's just a lot harder to do it, that's all
The A7II has the high ISO of a ten year old camera.
You forgot that cameras need lenses.
R
Rock and hard place
Guest
confused circle
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,708
- Reaction score
- 1,554
All to know about the cost can. Of course, Canon also generates higher profits. Which means the difference between cost and price is greater than for other brands. So you are paying more for profit margins than for necessarily better hardware and overhead. Which is obvious when many of the selling points of Canon bodies are brought up.
The ergos are very good. But also very old. The development of the Canon body style has long, long, long since amortized. It costs them basically nothing to make a comfortable body instead of an uncomfortable one.
The lenses cost absolutely nothing when making a body, and bodies cost nothing when making lenses, they're two separate production activities and two separate sales that take place. The cost of a lens is covered by selling lenses, so pricing a body higher because of it just makes the body more profitable. If you are willing to pay more for a body because of a lens, then the higher price you'd pay for that body comes with no higher cost in production of that body. And if the lenses are also sold for profit, all the better for them. It's a step beyond razor blades and handles, there isn't a loss leader. Just moneymakers all around.
The battery? In RF bodies? What is that better than? Plus, extra batteries are another item that come with extra costs to purchase. So why would the selling price of the body be higher when the batteries aren't "free" themselves. You pay for the body, you pay for batteries. Why pay more for the body when that's the case with every battery powered camera.
golfhov
Forum Pro
so where does that put Canon?
well at least the RP has IBIS, DPAF for video, and a sizable catalog of R lenses to choose from......
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum