Is Canon adrift?

[PhotoKhan]

First, it was the "killing" of the their one single format that was unique in the market: APS-H

Then, the strangely delayed availability if 1DX samples.

Now, that they finally show up, they lackluster in quality and seem to have obeyed to some puzzling editorial choices.

(...Not to mention the 1DMKIII fiasco, the unresolved low-light random refusal of the 1DMKIV to focus this recent f8 controversy...)

Who was the idiot in charge that let these come out...!?:













They are severely underexposed! (...and what's with the histogram gaps in #4?)

It was obvious that there was a deliberate choice of low cast, direct sun side lighting in the action scenes, the kind of lighting that gives magical results with Canon's long tele primes (...although some here can't see it...). It resulted in sample #3 (the bike one) but the others are irredeemably compromised by the sub-exposure.

Who is running shop over there? These are the very first samples of a very important product for them!

I am beginning to be deeply worried about Canon's lack of focus (...pun intended).

In this vein and to continue the misguided trend, I wouldn't be surprised if the "5DMKIII" was launched at over 3,500$ and that the new Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM well, well above 7,000 USD.

PK
--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)

 

[PhotoKhan]

...and you might also add the 24-70 II without IS to that list !

Seriously, who is running the show over there?

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)

 

[Stakeouttoo]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204652904577192132163888756.html

he's not......

Mr. Uchida, who has held the president's job for six years, will step down after Canon's annual shareholder meeting on March 29 and become an adviser to the company. Mr. Tanaka said it was Mr. Uchida's decision to leave his post as president --
Ray

my Canon 60d sure beats using that ol' Petri 7s

 

[photonius]

First, it was the "killing" of the their one single format that was unique in the market: APS-H

Then, the strangely delayed availability if 1DX samples.

Now, that they finally show up, they lackluster in quality and seem to have obeyed to some puzzling editorial choices.

(...Not to mention the 1DMKIII fiasco, the unresolved low-light random refusal of the 1DMKIV to focus this recent f8 controversy...)

Who was the idiot in charge that let these come out...!?:













They are severely underexposed! (...and what's with the histogram gaps in #4?)

It was obvious that there was a deliberate choice of low cast, direct sun side lighting in the action scenes, the kind of lighting that gives magical results with Canon's long tele primes (...although some here can't see it...). It resulted in sample #3 (the bike one) but the others are irredeemably compromised by the sub-exposure.

What exposure mode did you use?

I had a 550D (yes, just a lowly rebel), where exposure was off (overexposed) and the spot meter position was not in the center, causing lots of wrong exposures. After sending it in several times, it eventually got fixed.

Something like this should not happen with a Pro camera, but still looks like your exposure system may need adjustment.

-------------------------------------------------

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

 

[photonius]

...and you might also add the 24-70 II without IS to that list !

As I said in another thread, I think they would happily have done it, if they could.

The main complaint about the 24-70 was softness wide open. Ok, so Canon seems to have fixed this according to the charts, but I think they did not succeed to also incorporate IS at the same time - keeping weight/size (and perhaps cost) similar AND- i stress AND - improving the IQ substantially.

As compromise they offer 24 and 28mm IS lenses to those who need IS at these focal lengths.

Seriously, who is running the show over there?

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

 

[Montana500]

Yes.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

 

[Apewithacamera]

With the high price of the unrelessed EF 500mm f4L II It wouldn't suprise me if the 200-400 comes out at a 10-11K price range.

 

[Apewithacamera]

I might be going out on a limb here to say this but since Nikon didn't add VR to their 24-70, Canon just followed suit. I like my 24-105 very much and IS is handy on that lens indeed, but I don't like the barrel distortion at the wide end.

If the new 24-70 is optically excellent and has little distortion I'll consider purchasing one.

 

[Apewithacamera]

First, it was the "killing" of the their one single format that was unique in the market: APS-H

Then, the strangely delayed availability if 1DX samples.

Now, that they finally show up, they lackluster in quality and seem to have obeyed to some puzzling editorial choices.

(...Not to mention the 1DMKIII fiasco, the unresolved low-light random refusal of the 1DMKIV to focus this recent f8 controversy...)

Who was the idiot in charge that let these come out...!?:













They are severely underexposed! (...and what's with the histogram gaps in #4?)

It was obvious that there was a deliberate choice of low cast, direct sun side lighting in the action scenes, the kind of lighting that gives magical results with Canon's long tele primes (...although some here can't see it...). It resulted in sample #3 (the bike one) but the others are irredeemably compromised by the sub-exposure.

Who is running shop over there? These are the very first samples of a very important product for them!

I am beginning to be deeply worried about Canon's lack of focus (...pun intended).

In this vein and to continue the misguided trend, I wouldn't be surprised if the "5DMKIII" was launched at over 3,500$ and that the new Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM well, well above 7,000 USD.

PK
--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

Is Canon trying to get us to look at the dynamic range here of the 1D X? Deliberately under exposing photos of Dark colored subjects under harsh lighting?

In the first photo is the players arm a blown highlight or is there detail there?

 

[Schwany]

Late breaking news: Exposure is a personal choice in a camera that has manual exposure and exposure compensation. At least that's how I see it. Are personal choices allowed?

If a nice right weighted histogram is what one thinks is proper exposure, they need a camera with a Green square on it, or they need to shoot scenes with more light in them across the frame to begin with. That stadium is a very dark background and will skew the histogram.

With that said, the examples at Canon jp didn't excite me enough to download them.

I think they are trying to show that the camera can focus more than anything else.

 

[biza43]

Exactly right. As a photographer, one has to choose what to expose. In these examples, one could have exposed for the background (which is dark), and most likely the rest of the scene (athletes) would be overexposed.

Or one could have exposed for the important part of the scene (as it was done), and let the shadows fall where they may. Mind you, there is room in those histograms for further tonal adjustment.

So all this bashing is really irrelevant...
--
http://www.paulobizarro.com

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

I might be going out on a limb here to say this but since Nikon didn't add VR to their 24-70, Canon just followed suit. I like my 24-105 very much and IS is handy on that lens indeed, but I don't like the barrel distortion at the wide end.

If the new 24-70 is optically excellent and has little distortion I'll consider purchasing one.

Don't. I have a 28-70 L for years (predecessor of 24-70, and sharper) but since I got the 24-105 about 3 years ago, I never use it. It's comparatively too heavy

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

They are severely underexposed! (...and what's with the histogram gaps in #4?)

I think they're correctly exposed but the lighting is low side-lighting, possibly chosen to give extra acutance. In such lighting the areas in shadow are by definition under- but correctly exposed as regards the whole picture
If you look at the sprinters face at 100% where it's lit it looks very sharp.

 

[A Owens]

They are severely underexposed! (...and what's with the histogram gaps in #4?)

How do they look when the shadows are lifted a few stops? That seems to be the current IQ determinant of the day on these forums.

 

[A Owens]

(...and what's with the histogram gaps in #4?)

That is just how the tones of the image are distributed is it not? The LH peak is the dark background and other shadows, the middle peak is probably the track and the RH peak is the probably the grass and the non-shaded parts of the runners body.

 

[PhotoKhan]

What exposure mode did you use?

I had a 550D (yes, just a lowly rebel), where exposure was off (overexposed) and the spot meter position was not in the center, causing lots of wrong exposures. After sending it in several times, it eventually got fixed.

Something like this should not happen with a Pro camera, but still looks like your exposure system may need adjustment.

Sorry I did not made that clear. These are not mine. These are actually the first sample images provided by Canon from their new (...and yet to be released...) 1DX.

However, I found it utterly amusing that you posted that in all good faith.

Unwillingly, you provided the single most powerful comment for their unwise editorial decision.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)

 

[PhotoKhan]

Late breaking news: Exposure is a personal choice in a camera that has manual exposure and exposure compensation. At least that's how I see it. Are personal choices allowed?

If a nice right weighted histogram is what one thinks is proper exposure, they need a camera with a Green square on it, or they need to shoot scenes with more light in them across the frame to begin with. That stadium is a very dark background and will skew the histogram.

With that said, the examples at Canon jp didn't excite me enough to download them.

I think they are trying to show that the camera can focus more than anything else.

Is that what you guys are aiming at...?...That those are appropriately exposed...?

...Is that really how you feel?

Because, I strongly believe, none of those 3 photos would ever make it past a sports publication photography editor's desk and that is one of the target markets for this camera: Action photography.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

Late breaking news: Exposure is a personal choice in a camera that has manual exposure and exposure compensation. At least that's how I see it. Are personal choices allowed?

If a nice right weighted histogram is what one thinks is proper exposure, they need a camera with a Green square on it, or they need to shoot scenes with more light in them across the frame to begin with. That stadium is a very dark background and will skew the histogram.

With that said, the examples at Canon jp didn't excite me enough to download them.

I think they are trying to show that the camera can focus more than anything else.

Is that what you guys are aiming at...?...That those are appropriately exposed...?

...Is that really how you feel?

Because, I strongly believe, none of those 3 photos would ever make it past a sports publication photography editor's desk and that is one of the target markets for this camera: Action photography.

PK

No. They are lousy photographs but that's not what they're for. Mind you the shot of the footballer is a very hard shot to get.

 

[tko]

No. They are lousy photographs but that's not what they're for. Mind you the shot of the footballer is a very hard shot to get.

Not for a $6000 camera and a pro photographer.

Or do you think Canon used an amateur photograph?

 

[misolo]

I might be going out on a limb here to say this but since Nikon didn't add VR to their 24-70, Canon just followed suit. I like my 24-105 very much and IS is handy on that lens indeed, but I don't like the barrel distortion at the wide end.

If the new 24-70 is optically excellent and has little distortion I'll consider purchasing one.

Don't. I have a 28-70 L for years (predecessor of 24-70, and sharper) but since I got the 24-105 about 3 years ago, I never use it. It's comparatively too heavy

I'm agnostic on this one, but you may want to note that the 24-70 II is closer in weight to the 24-105 than to the original 24-70 (135g vs. 145g difference):

24-105 ..... 670g
24-70 II .... 805g
24-70 ....... 950g

A reduction in weight was probably a big part of the brief for the designers.