Behold the new Canon Behemoth!

[dazedgonebye]

I don't try to claim this is a bad camera or an unnessary tool, I say it is sometimes "a who has a bigger genitalia" issue.Especially with amateurs.

Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.

BTW, what is it with this place and the word "amateur" lately?
I keep seeing it thrown around with pejorative implications and I'm beginning to wonder if the word "arrogance" doesn't need to be used more often.

 

[Kin Lau]

There's a "holier than thou" attitude that comes up quite often on RFF now. It's too bad.

35mm RF's are like chisels, and this is a jackhammer.

If you don't need or want a jackhammer, stop looking in the jackhammer aisle.

 

[dexdog]

Probably a good camera, if you need a digital SLR. It is more than I would choose to carry, but would be useful for wildlfe photography, car races, or sports in general.

If I were to buy another SLR it would be the 5D, or the upcoming 7D.

Also, agree with an earlier poster- nothing wrong with being an amateur.

 

[Glauke]

Yes, Michael could have gotten that shot with a M6 with 35mm, if he had been allowed to the pit lane. From where the lower PJs where allowed to shoot, they had to use 400/2.8s with 2x TCs.



It's not my topic nor is it my way of shooting, but I know that sometimes one needs these tools.

You said right, sometimes one NEEDS these tools.
Marketing today has just one objective: make the people think that they NEED something.
Michael is a pro. He really needs it, no other way to get this pic for him.
I am not a pro. If i was there, i would took this pic with a MTO1000 and a Zenit 122.
Between me and Michael there is a jungle of the so called "prosumer" which believe that i'm just an ugly poor eccentric photographer who likes to use old gears because i'm radical-chic. They think that if they want to emulate Michael, they absolutely need the same gears.
It's like the classic Nikon/Canon war. Why any amateur wanted a Minolta? Because no pro used it. And if a pro don't use it, it means that it's no good even for amateurs.
Marketing hits again....

 

[Charlie]

Glauke,

Marketing has always had one objective and that is to sell a product to a consumer. It's not evil, it's not good and it occupies no space on any moral ground, be that high or low. Buying and selling are just life.

This new Cannon is not the ruin of civilization nor is it a metaphor for all that is wrong in the world (an SUV?). It's just a product that people can choose to buy or not.

Regards,

Charlie

 

[ray_g]

Behemoth? Doesn't look much bigger than the digitall pro offerings from Nikon and Canon for the past few years? And film before that (F5, EOS1v).

Personally, I don't need the 10fps and other features. I'd rather have a 5D.

 

[oscroft]

Errrrm, Oscroft, this huge thing has only a half-frame sensor - 28 x 18

Oh, wow! I'd thought all the EOS-1D models were full frame.

 

[RayPA]

if people would sell one of their least used lenses(be it a leica or an L) and get second hand artbooks\museum admissions\seminar for that money it would give them a world of good.

😕 hmmm, Michael. You've lost me here! 🙂 Are you in the market for a lens, or does owning an extra under-used lens mean you lack artisitc merit? 😉


🙂

 

[shadowfox]

Hmm, seeing some of the pictures made by "professionals" I often wonder why the bad rap on amateurs.

Of course it's a spectrum, at one end, there are lots of amateurs who just like to look like a photographer, but at the other end, being an amateur means more time and less pressure to produce beautiful images.

The "bigger than your ..." syndrome is a guy thing, if you're less vocal about it, it just means that... you are less vocal about it, it doesn't mean you don't have it.

BTW, my statement above is me, a guy, talking to other guys, so ladies, don't take any issues, ok? 🙂

 

[Michael I.]

I am not 🙂
I meet much more photographers who are obsessed with owning\upgrading to the very best equipment and hardly shoot - and produces hideous results. I know people who made great pics with zenits.

 

[John Camp]

It's a great camera, but the hype is laughable. IMHO, there's one good reason to buy it: you need a new pro-level SLR, so you might as well get the latest one.

But it won't make any difference in your photography. If you're shooting the local dimly lit volleyball game with your III, and the guy next to you is using is using a crappy old 5D, and he's a better photographer, guess who's going to get the better shots?

Somebody higher up this thread said it didn't seem any bigger than other top-end Nikons or Canons. Well, it is. It's more than five ounces heavier than a D2x, which is already pretty large, and 47 ounces compared to the M8's 22 ounces (with battery) -- so that makes it what, 2 1/5 M8s?

I agree that the comparison to an SUV is off-target: the III isn't going to hurt anybody, or spew CO2 into the atmosphere, it's just that anybody who thinks it's going to really, really help their career, well, it's not going to help their career...it's like a carpenter who thinks that a hammer from Sears will build better houses than a hammer from Fleet-Farm.

Not to rant, but the latest issue of Trailer Boat magazine has a story about a guy who had a powered catamaran purpose-built for surfing photos, good in up to 100-foot waves. It's 40 feet long, has launching ramps for two jet skis, etc. Didn't say how much it cost, but I don't see how it could be less than half-million dollars or so...for surf photos. I mean, maybe the values have gotten out of whack?

The same magazine (not to rant) reviewed a ski boat that it praised for being thrifty because it got 4.3 miles per gallon at it's most efficient cruising speeds...but kick it up to top speed, and it got less than half that. Two miles per gallon for a boat that's good for nothing but driving around and pulling skiers? Give me a break...😛

JC

 

[Trius]

Well put!

The 10fps is pretty impressive. To shoot at that rate and buffer and save is indicative of a pretty powerful camera.

It is so amazing that before motor drives of any speed, great photos of decisive moments were ever made.

Edit: All of the photos I viewed were lifeless and cold, IMO. I did like the fact that there were hockey teams involved, though.

 

[aizan]

this is one weird thread...i hope it's not a bad sign.

 

[Trius]

I think what most people are "dissing" the latest Canon are reacting to are the sheer evolutionary departure from the basics of what a camera is. I mean my gawd, something that large, unwieldy and complex to make a photo? I do not for a moment think that in the hands of a talented person it cannot be used to good effect. And the 10fps may be useful in some rare situations, but I just don't "get it". The more technology that gets between the photographer and the moment, the less I'm interested.

 

[dostacos]

I woner how it compares in size and weight to a Kiev 60 or 80?

I am sure there are people on this forum who will buy and cherish this camera (and probably get some great results) but I must admit it represents the opposite of all the things I look for personally in a camera.

I will trade EITHER for the Canon, I suspect the 60 is about the same size and the weight near the 88 with the 90 degree finder 🙄

As a tool it has it's place...say anybody know where I can find a 400MM viewfinder for my LTM telephoto lens 😱

 

[amateriat]

Having shot with the ID Mk II, I must say I'm glad they at least cut the weight of the silly thing (the Mk II had me thinking blissfully of my Minolta 9xi bodies; even with extra battery pack and full-on 80-200 f/2.8 APO, it was a flywheight next to this cannon of a Canon). Yes, if you shoot heavy-duty sports and/or wildlife and need to make a buck from it and do it digitally, this is your camera. But it's another reminder of why I left the SLR world for the bulk of my work (personal and would-be pro). Digital was supposed to be smaller/lighter/faster/better, and eventually it will be. In the meantime, you have to settle for any two out of four.


- Barrett

 

[MadMan2k]

I like the sounds of that camera. It really is quite an achievement as far as technology goes. Using the transmitter, you can completely control it remotely, over wireless, USB or Ethernet, and you can copy the pictures to an external hard drive through the camera's menu, or just shoot straight to an external drive (although CF cards are getting so cheap, it's probably not worth the trouble). The noise levels are the best so far, and although the grain isn't as attractive as film.... wait, what grain?

I don't like DSLR's in the same way I like my M3 and other mechanical meterless rangefinders, it's for a different purpose. I wouldn't shoot everyday street with something like that, it draws way too much attention when you're not expected to be taking pictures.

Depending on the direction the career I pursue in photography goes, I might be shooting with something like that in a few years. Or I might be shooting large format, who knows. If I get into photojournalism, it'll be a mixture of a DSLR like that and a digital RF, and if I get into fine art print sales or higher end architecture it'll be (mostly) LF.

I'll never give up old rangefinders for shooting street and available light work, though. Shooting film is just fun, and worrying about digital's problems takes away from that fun when you're just out taking pictures for the hell of it.

 

[Rico]

Can't we all just get along? 🙂

35mm lens on full-frame 135.
​

 

[RayPA]

It is so amazing that before motor drives of any speed, great photos of decisive moments were ever made.

Edit: All of the photos I viewed were lifeless and cold, IMO. I did like the fact that there were hockey teams involved, though.

LOL... decisive moment.. I'm still waiting for the definition of "decisive moment" besides the one that defines it as a marketing ploy/term designed to sell books and photos...oh and a concept used to frustrate photographers into thinking their efforts 'are not worthy'

like I said 10 fps, buffering, writing and shooting is still pretty freakin' impressive.

 

[Glauke]

Glauke,

Marketing has always had one objective and that is to sell a product to a consumer. It's not evil, it's not good and it occupies no space on any moral ground, be that high or low. Buying and selling are just life.

Charlie

Well, i think if marketing create inside you a need to own something you cannot live without, it's evil!
This concept is not limited to cameras: Ask a guitarist what kind of guitar he wants. He will say "Fender Stratocaster" or "Gibson Les Paul" (Fender/Gibson = Canon/Nikon). Do you think that Ibanez guitars sound bad? No, but noone want it, until you are free from influence of showbiz, legends, stories, ecc.
They would tell you that Stratocasters made in Japan are not true Fender. They would tell you that the only "true" Stratocasters are made in USA. But....same materials, same project, same everything, so what's the difference? Noone knows, but real Fenders are Made in USA...
They would tell you that if you want become a great guitarist, you have to play the right instrument. No chinese clone, no korean brand. You need the best!
They would tell you that if you want to impress your friends, you have to use ultra-high end multieffect, pedals, preamplifiers, valves, power units, giant bulky cabinets with eight 8" speakers....
Can you notice that similarity about photography and a lot of other things?
When someone tell me that if i want to take that pic of Norbert Haug i NEED that camera and that lens, i simply cannot retain myself to think about korean guitars...
🙂