New Mark II add....wow pathetic photography...

I thought I was the only who noticed this. Their brochures and ads for their film bodies are fine. And even the brochuires for their digital point nd shoots.

But their ads and brochures for their SLR line are AWFUL! Always have been. Thank god their cameras are better than the ads make them appear.

Jason Hutchinson said:

Jason

Ron Frank said:

I could not help noticiing, and now commenting on the HORRIBLE
photography in the latest Mark II add. If one ignores the blocked
blacks and IMO overall lack luster printing job, the images still
stinks!!

Squinting, deep shadows under the eyes and chin, smiles that look
like something that was forced onto the jokers face in a BatMan
movie, and so stiffly posed that it looks like someone shoved
boards accross their backs...just plain bad photography.

I have no idea IF this is suppose to be a sample from the Mark II,
but regardless of WHAT camera this came out of, what were they
thinking??

You'd think large camera companies could recognize and promote good
image quality....

I'm a Nikon user, and not here to bash the Mark II. In fact I'm
very sure it's going to be a great camera.

But that add photo is just WRONG....

(I'm looking at a 2 page spread in 5/2004 of Outdoor photographer,
but I've seen it in a BUCH of the rags)

Ron

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

.... the whole page is and ad, it is funny and emphasises the ability of the photographer to get the money shots before the clients change their minds.

I think most professionals will understand this ad, ever had a client say to you, “it’s all right, wee get Smith to take the shot” as you are fumbling with some errant gear?

If you ever did, you’d appreciate the message.

Thanks very, very much for posting the page.

tells a story and IS different to the genre.
(and I use Nikon)

Juuso

Ger Bee said:

.... the whole page is and ad, it is funny and emphasises the
ability of the photographer to get the money shots before the
clients change their minds.

I think most professionals will understand this ad, ever had a
client say to you, “it’s all right, wee get Smith to take the shot”
as you are fumbling with some errant gear?

If you ever did, you’d appreciate the message.

Thanks very, very much for posting the page.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/juuso

Drago1919 said:

Ger Bee said:

.... thanks

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think instead of comparing the 1D2's speed with say, the competition (the D2h) or the previous generation (the 1D), the ad simply pokes fun at how quick some Vegas weddings are, and how many marriages don't even last that long (refer to last marriage of Britney Spears as an example). the photo of the couple coming out of that little white chapel was either a snapshot or is intended to simulate the appearance of a snapshot taken from a friend's compact point and shoot or Polariod. This is no big, planned wedding, the clothes - tux, gown, etc. - were probably rentals, too.

Cheers,
Otel

So what if Canon has a sense of humor. It gets the point across. For the humor impaired, or for jealous and frigid Nikonians, you should probably realize that the picture wasn't supposed to be for the purposes of scrunity. When an ad states that a product is "faster than a Vega wedding" and "a camera so advanced it makes all other cameras look like bridesmaids", that's usually a clue to lighten up and loosen your overly-starched collar.

By the way, your in depth analysis and critique of the photo is pretty funny, too, although you (unlike Canon) probably didn't mean it to be.

Ron Frank said:

I could not help noticiing, and now commenting on the HORRIBLE
photography in the latest Mark II add. If one ignores the blocked
blacks and IMO overall lack luster printing job, the images still
stinks!!

Squinting, deep shadows under the eyes and chin, smiles that look
like something that was forced onto the jokers face in a BatMan
movie, and so stiffly posed that it looks like someone shoved
boards accross their backs...just plain bad photography.

I have no idea IF this is suppose to be a sample from the Mark II,
but regardless of WHAT camera this came out of, what were they
thinking??

You'd think large camera companies could recognize and promote good
image quality....

I'm a Nikon user, and not here to bash the Mark II. In fact I'm
very sure it's going to be a great camera.

But that add photo is just WRONG....

(I'm looking at a 2 page spread in 5/2004 of Outdoor photographer,
but I've seen it in a BUCH of the rags)

Ron

Click to expand...

--
Francisco

catchy ad slogan dont work as good on professional as it does on consumer... I hope not... at least.. The vegas ad sucked.. Allmost anything would have been better.. Watching a cheetah catch a deer (cant think of the exact animals name now) would have been better then the vegas ad..

Tom O'Neil said:

Masterdeath said:

It means its as fast as a Vegas wedding.. STUPID AD

They need to show a shot of a Blue Angel F18 doing a 50 ft fly by
near the ground with the camera grabbing 8.5 fps of it flying by!
Show 40 small frames going across a full 2 page spread..,

Click to expand...

I can do that with a 1D (almost, 8 fps). What kind of ad would
show that a print of this would be better if the original capture
was 8 megapixels rather than 4? It's hard to express that up in a
catchy ad slogan.

Tom O'Neil said:

I bet everyone here agrees that would be better then the vegas ad..

ADS FOR PROS DO NOT NEED THE AMUSEMENT THAT THE CONSUMBER ADS HAVE..

Drago1919 said:

But the typography was nice.

Ron Frank said:

I could not help noticiing, and now commenting on the HORRIBLE
photography in the latest Mark II add. If one ignores the blocked
blacks and IMO overall lack luster printing job, the images still
stinks!!

Squinting, deep shadows under the eyes and chin, smiles that look
like something that was forced onto the jokers face in a BatMan
movie, and so stiffly posed that it looks like someone shoved
boards accross their backs...just plain bad photography.

I have no idea IF this is suppose to be a sample from the Mark II,
but regardless of WHAT camera this came out of, what were they
thinking??

You'd think large camera companies could recognize and promote good
image quality....

I'm a Nikon user, and not here to bash the Mark II. In fact I'm
very sure it's going to be a great camera.

But that add photo is just WRONG....

(I'm looking at a 2 page spread in 5/2004 of Outdoor photographer,
but I've seen it in a BUCH of the rags)

Ron

Click to expand...

--
^^ ' nothings ever final until you run out of time ' ^^

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

"professionals make up a very small portion of 1D MK II buyers, "???

I very much disagree very few hobbyest are going to spend 4500 for just the body.. What do you define as a professional? To me anyone who will use the camera for a some form of income large or small mean professional to me.. Dont say the only pros are those working for SI and CNN...
Wedding PJ are professionals also...

Jason Busch said:

...yah get a little free-spirited.

The ad was probably due to the PMA excitement of the 1D MK II being
announced in Las Vegas. Dumb it was, but hey, Canon is well aware
professionals make up a very small portion of 1D MK II buyers, and
by glazing over this forum even and a few others, we have many who
are jumping to the MK II, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see
some some shots JUST LIKE the Canon ad.

--
JB
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums

Click to expand...

Its cute, but it just does not appear to me as a professional.. Even the ad layout is really ameture looking..

Ger Bee said:

.... the whole page is and ad, it is funny and emphasises the
ability of the photographer to get the money shots before the
clients change their minds.

I think most professionals will understand this ad, ever had a
client say to you, “it’s all right, wee get Smith to take the shot”
as you are fumbling with some errant gear?

If you ever did, you’d appreciate the message.

Thanks very, very much for posting the page.

Click to expand...

The ad is very poorly conceived even if you use the Vegas wedding chappel idea... please note I publish a magazine.. every ad I produce is a work of art.. The ad looks like it was made as fast as a Vegas wedding...
Either way it does not effect my decision to get the Mark II...

I would have had a better picture though, but I wonder if the ad was though of last minute and if the image is stock art..

If I was Canon I would worry people would think the so so image was form the Mark II

T3 said:

By the way, your in depth analysis and critique of the photo is
pretty funny, too, although you (unlike Canon) probably didn't mean
it to be.

Ron Frank said:

I could not help noticiing, and now commenting on the HORRIBLE
photography in the latest Mark II add. If one ignores the blocked
blacks and IMO overall lack luster printing job, the images still
stinks!!

Squinting, deep shadows under the eyes and chin, smiles that look
like something that was forced onto the jokers face in a BatMan
movie, and so stiffly posed that it looks like someone shoved
boards accross their backs...just plain bad photography.

I have no idea IF this is suppose to be a sample from the Mark II,
but regardless of WHAT camera this came out of, what were they
thinking??

You'd think large camera companies could recognize and promote good
image quality....

I'm a Nikon user, and not here to bash the Mark II. In fact I'm
very sure it's going to be a great camera.

But that add photo is just WRONG....

(I'm looking at a 2 page spread in 5/2004 of Outdoor photographer,
but I've seen it in a BUCH of the rags)

Ron

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Anne Lebovitz has a sense of humor, and her images are outstanding.

I'm hardly jealous or frigid, nor is Nikon the only system I own. Get over yourself, I'm a photographer, not a Nikonians .

If YOU think poor image quality in support of an advertisement is yet another Canon strong point, then crawl back into the hole that is the Buda Canon.

IMO poor photography in advertising is rather stupid, and when that add is marketing a 4500K camera, it's just wrong.

As to my depth of analysis...please enlighten us with your profound wisdom rather than just blowing smoke. Your tone is rude and uncalled for. Little boys resort to name calling when they have nothing intelligent to say.

Ron

T3 said:

By the way, your in depth analysis and critique of the photo is
pretty funny, too, although you (unlike Canon) probably didn't mean
it to be.

Ron Frank said:

I could not help noticiing, and now commenting on the HORRIBLE
photography in the latest Mark II add. If one ignores the blocked
blacks and IMO overall lack luster printing job, the images still
stinks!!

Squinting, deep shadows under the eyes and chin, smiles that look
like something that was forced onto the jokers face in a BatMan
movie, and so stiffly posed that it looks like someone shoved
boards accross their backs...just plain bad photography.

I have no idea IF this is suppose to be a sample from the Mark II,
but regardless of WHAT camera this came out of, what were they
thinking??

You'd think large camera companies could recognize and promote good
image quality....

I'm a Nikon user, and not here to bash the Mark II. In fact I'm
very sure it's going to be a great camera.

But that add photo is just WRONG....

(I'm looking at a 2 page spread in 5/2004 of Outdoor photographer,
but I've seen it in a BUCH of the rags)

Ron

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm a bit shocked at how seriously you are taking this issue. On the one hand, people have said that the real reason why Canon is so successful is that it's all about their marketing. On the other hand, now people are criticizing that Canon's marketing stinks. Maybe Canon's just a company that produces great products, but is just crummy at marketing? I could care less if their ad was done with crayons. Why? Because it's really the equipment that counts, not the marketing-- especially in the high-end sector where Canon's DSLR reputation is already well established and they don't need a good picture sample in the magazine ad to make buyers feel comfortable with buying their product. Besides, there are other Canon ads that already follow that route-- particularly the prominent ads for the 1Ds that show very detailed images and ask something to the effect: "Can you tell it's digital? We can't." Or something like that. So showing off great pictures with gobs of detail has obviously been done, and it's clearly been established that Canon's CMOS delivers the goods. Anyone who already doesn't know that probably shouldn't even be considering dropping $4500 for a 1D MKII.

Ron Frank said:

IMO poor photography in advertising is rather stupid, and when that
add is marketing a 4500K camera, it's just wrong.

Click to expand...

And if your contention is that a good magazine ad picture is going to weigh heavily in your decision to buy a 4500K professional camera, you should really question your own evaluation criteria, because IMHO, giving so much consideration to a magazine ad is really "just wrong."

Like I said earlier, lighten up. When I saw that ad, the last thing that came to my mind was thinking: "Squinting, deep shadows under the eyes and chin, smiles that look like something that was forced onto the jokers face in a BatMan movie, and so stiffly posed that it looks like someone shoved boards accross their backs..." It's obviously a humorous snapshot. And it did get me to stop and read the words below it. Which was probably it's purpose in the first place.

Ron Frank said:

I'm hardly jealous or frigid, nor is Nikon the only system I own.
Get over yourself, I'm a photographer, not a Nikonians .

If YOU think poor image quality in support of an advertisement is
yet another Canon strong point, then crawl back into the hole that
is the Buda Canon.

IMO poor photography in advertising is rather stupid, and when that
add is marketing a 4500K camera, it's just wrong.

As to my depth of analysis...please enlighten us with your profound
wisdom rather than just blowing smoke. Your tone is rude and
uncalled for. Little boys resort to name calling when they have
nothing intelligent to say.

Ron

T3 said:

By the way, your in depth analysis and critique of the photo is
pretty funny, too, although you (unlike Canon) probably didn't mean
it to be.

Ron Frank said:

I could not help noticiing, and now commenting on the HORRIBLE
photography in the latest Mark II add. If one ignores the blocked
blacks and IMO overall lack luster printing job, the images still
stinks!!

Squinting, deep shadows under the eyes and chin, smiles that look
like something that was forced onto the jokers face in a BatMan
movie, and so stiffly posed that it looks like someone shoved
boards accross their backs...just plain bad photography.

I have no idea IF this is suppose to be a sample from the Mark II,
but regardless of WHAT camera this came out of, what were they
thinking??

You'd think large camera companies could recognize and promote good
image quality....

I'm a Nikon user, and not here to bash the Mark II. In fact I'm
very sure it's going to be a great camera.

But that add photo is just WRONG....

(I'm looking at a 2 page spread in 5/2004 of Outdoor photographer,
but I've seen it in a BUCH of the rags)

Ron

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ron Frank said:

Anne Lebovitz has a sense of humor, and her images are outstanding.

Click to expand...

Ron,

T3 is a troll. Don't argue with him. He will tie you down in a hundred postings, and blow your blood pressure. The most horrible thing is that he is a master of triva, with the intellect of an insect.

--
Jim

Masterdeath said:

"professionals make up a very small portion of 1D MK II buyers, "???

I very much disagree very few hobbyest are going to spend 4500 for
just the body.. What do you define as a professional? To me
anyone who will use the camera for a some form of income large or
small mean professional to me.. Dont say the only pros are those
working for SI and CNN...
Wedding PJ are professionals also...

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree.

I still think Canon is laughing all the way to the bank due to so-and-so who just upgraded from his professional Sony cam or Minolta DiMage, and wanted more pixels and the fastest frame rate on the block..and who complains the pictures are soft and doesn't have a copy of Photoshop or some other editor.

Now that I have looked at the add several times, I think it's funny. I won't go into why, but Canon is banking on the ignorance of it's consumer base, and it appears to be exponentially growing.

--
JB
http://www.digitaldingus.com
http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums

Jim T H said:

Don't argue with him. He will tie you down in a
hundred postings, and blow your blood pressure. The most horrible
thing is that he is a master of triva, with the intellect of an
insect.

Click to expand...

Jim T H, you might want to review your own posting history. Postings of 20+ messages in a single thread in the Canon forums (for someone who doesn't even use a Canon) are not uncommon for you. And they are intellectually, factually, and substantively weak generally. I, and many others, would gladly prove it to you if you would like. It certainly would not be difficult. And saying someone has "the intellect of an insect", yet in the same sentence criticizing them for the informationally specific content of their posts (what you call "trivia")-- well, such childish and schizophrenic attacks are generally the modus operandi of the intellectually meek, as you have duly demonstrated.

You also might want to read the statement you made above, then look up the word "hypocrisy" in the dictionary. It's quite apt.