Bill Liss
Member
I don't meant to be rude, but I don't understand why some of the ppl here are so bitter about digital. It seems like the past has shown that it's necessary to embrace technology. And this camera seems like a great product. It certainly seems better than the other DSLRs, and probably is hands down more convenient, and in the price per picture respect, cheaper, than film SLRs. Hopefully as technology progresses further this stuff will shrink a bit, become more mainstream, and overlap into the rangefinder world.
You don't have to like change, but you don't have to denounce it either. If digital is wrong they probably wouldn't have made this camera.
You don't have to like change, but you don't have to denounce it either. If digital is wrong they probably wouldn't have made this camera.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Glauke said:
It's a very sad thing to have no free will.
FrankS
Registered User
It is just good natured fun. I'm sure this press release was received more favourably and seriously on digital and slr type forums. Remember that this is the Rangefinder forum, and largely film oriented, though I'm sure at least 90% of us also use digital, if only to take shots of our vintage film RFs.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Michiel said:
Yeah, but just don't start an FID thread! Good-natured fun can get ugly real quick!
S
Socke
Guest
Glauke said: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...
Luckily I said that you could take a picture off Norbert Haug with a 35 on a rangefinder
But the mere PJ at a DTM race in Oschersleben can't because he isn't allowed into the pitlane while the race is on. Then a stabilized 400mm with 2xTC on a cropped digital helps a lot!
And to the issue with "amateurs" and "hobbyists" using "Pro" gear, what was the reason to get a Leica M?
Michael Heckel used to use Minolta before he switched to digital when magazins didn't buy slides anymore. Another PJ I know switched from F90x to Canon D30 when that was cheaper than a Nikon 1D and he's always on a budget
I bought a Canon D60, which is still good enough for me, because I know those with the red ringed lenses and I can borrow anything from a STE2 remote to a 400/2.8 from them.
But 6 out of 10 times I grab one of my Contaxes, that's why we're here, (d)SLRs and what you do with them and very long lenses is not our topic of interest in photography, else we'd be over at dpreview or some site like that.
Glauke
Member
Socke said:
To get the best, but what i'm referring to is that great section of buyers which believe that with a Leica you automatically become a great shooter. And, worst, you cannot take great pics with a Zorki, simply because Leica is Perfection and Zorki is thrash.
Even if i am certain that noone Leica owners believe in it!
Again, Michael need it, because he is a pro and he get payed for this pic. He cannot miss.
Me, i am not a pro, i don't get payed, i can miss the pic without dramatic consequence. I can use different, cheaper gears and probably obtain a good shot. So, why they try to convince me that i need the same gears as Michael?
S
Socke
Guest
Ah, now I understand. I'm not as easily convinced and usualy choose whatever I think works for me, but from time to time I think that some things other use may work for me, too.
As far as the Canon 1 series goes, I had enough opportunity to shoot EOS 1n, 1v, 1D and 1D MkII that I now know they don't work for me, even if I could afford one
So if they try to convince you, just ignore them. See it as an benefit, the advertising you ignore pays for the photo magazin where you ignore it.
As an added benefit, we know that their advertising money is wasted on us
As far as the Canon 1 series goes, I had enough opportunity to shoot EOS 1n, 1v, 1D and 1D MkII that I now know they don't work for me, even if I could afford one
So if they try to convince you, just ignore them. See it as an benefit, the advertising you ignore pays for the photo magazin where you ignore it.
As an added benefit, we know that their advertising money is wasted on us
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Glauke said:
So they can make more money? Is that a trick question? :angel:
Your statments regarding your needs as a photographer would seem to indicate that you are perfectly capable of discerning your own needs...and acting accordingly.
Personally, I love every sale of the latest and greatest. Volume drives the price of technology down and revenues fuel research and development. Some day, perhaps I'll be able to afford what I don't need too. How cool would that be?
mw_uio
Well-known
This has been my favourite thread so far this week.
MArk
Quito, EC
MArk
Quito, EC
sepiareverb
genius and moron
You didn't let that Canon actually TOUCH that Leica did you?!?
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Ray: Whichever moment is decisive is your decision.RayPA said:
10fps isn't impressive to me, because I don't need it, never have, never will. Hence, I think the marketing-speak for that feature is pretty funny. But that's just me, and in Canon's world I'm a lost cause anyway.
John Robertson
Well-known
Michiel said:I enjoy seeing a pro use this kind of gear. For me it seems that they must really good to be able to use such a complex machine. QUOTE]
I suppose if you can afford to sink money into this size of thing you can always get a flunkey to carry it for you!!
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Trius said:
Well another 8fps more and it'll be the expensive and technologically advanced equivalent of a silent Super-8 camera!
I think there was a thread a week ago about video being THE image capture tool of future. Me thinks we're getting there!saxshooter
Well-known
Michael I. said:
Coincidentally, the Israeli photographer who won the Pulitzer Prize for News Photography last week used a Canon digital SLR roughly the same size as the one being discussed here.
Michael I.
Well-known
saxshooter said:
Most of them do - and the picture is great -but the bulk is utter crap. Regardless of equipment.
http://rollfilm.wordpress.com/2007/01/20/alex-levac-our-country/
jobo
Established
OK, so Canon still has this uglifying image processing bug. If it really matters, you could shoot RAW and use Lightroom/Aperture/Bibble/Lightzone/whatever to process the image: no jaggies. It's no big deal. :angel:NickTrop said:
(They definitely should fix the bug, though. Maybe nobody has reported it?)
/Jobo
jaffa_777
Established
This thread is starting to sound like another forum I used to visit regulary. I hope it doesn't turn into that.
Seriously, the new Canon is designed for sport shooters and photojournalists. And if I was in one of these proffesions I would buy this camera tomorrow, as a tool. And at the end of the day/week, I would come home and put it down, and pick up a rangefinder for personal projects. I don't see what all this fuss is about? It seems like a really kick ass camera for people who would use it?
Seriously, the new Canon is designed for sport shooters and photojournalists. And if I was in one of these proffesions I would buy this camera tomorrow, as a tool. And at the end of the day/week, I would come home and put it down, and pick up a rangefinder for personal projects. I don't see what all this fuss is about? It seems like a really kick ass camera for people who would use it?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
yeah, sounds a bit like football supporters discussing around a beer.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I have to concur. I like my rangefinders, a lot, but I like my dSLR as well. The new Canon looks wonderful, for what it is and does. I'd have one if I could, but can't justify it. But I'm sure its AF system is just great for birds in flight (one of my interests). Something, say, my M3 and Elmar are singularly unsuited for.jaffa_777 said:
...Mike
FrankS
Registered User
I'll say it one more time: There is no fuss, it's just good natured tongue in cheek fun. I'm sure the Bessa R4a/m received the same kind of reception in the dslr forums.