Jump to content

What I love about Canon and what I hate about Canon


Recommended Posts

What I love about Canon:
The image. The color science, the ergonomics, the menus.

What I hate about Canon:
Everything else. Here are just a few of the top contenders on my hate list:

Before I began using Canon's late last year I had alway heard about their glass and all the fantastic choices they offer. Maybe so, but not for video shooters who do a lot of hand held work. I have a C300 Mk II --a wonderful camera. But can I find a zoom lens that is at least 2.8 with IS? No sirreee Bob, it doesn't exist except in the EF-S version of the 17-55 2.8 and IS---works a treat on the humble 80 and 70D...with dual pixel and follow focus--the whole nine yards, and probably does the same on the C100 Mk II. But provides nothing but basic AF on the C300 Mk II. 

I have a Tamron 2.8 zoom with IS. Works on the 1dC--but the C300 Mk II won't even read it. WTF! Who the Hell does this kind of stuff to their customers?!?

Now, I could see this if Canon was pushing you to buy a more expensive full frame option---but none is provided. I am positive a firmware update would provide those full focus features to the EF-S--which is a very sharp lens--for the C300 Mk II. Yes, it's noisy, but it would still be usable in many circumstances. But in lieu of that Canon offers: nothing, NADA, Nichts, zippo, zilch. Come on Canon. How about some 2016 lenses.

The only concession Canon has made for run and gun shooters is the XC10. As good as it is, how about providing it in an APS-C sensor and a 2.8 constant f-stop? How about doing something innovative instead of leading from behind, making your customers wait for years, and then never giving the market what they ask for?

Canon marketing and product planners--you suck. Stop cheating one product in a pathetic attempt to protect another. Think about your customers for a change---believe me you will sell more.

Honest to God, if there was a mirrorless company that could provide wonderful color science, 4kDCI with reasonably substantial bit rates and a Log gamma, that offered IN CAMERA stabilization and lens flexibility like Sony does I'd never give Canon a second glance, and never buy another over-priced Canon product.

And speaking of over-priced: what kind of company gouges their customers for their new models, and when they (and their distributors) don't get the sales numbers they hoped for (because the price was so absurdly out of line with the rest of the market), they stab those who were loyal to them by cutting the price by thousands--down to about what the product should have been in the first place. Here's what I learned in running my company: price a fine product fairly and reasonably and you will have robust sales out of the chute and sustained sales in the long run. How many people don't buy a Canon product at the outset, use what they have satisfactorily, and wait it out for the big gouge to end and save thousands? How many of those would buy earlier if the pricing was fair and reasonable for the quality? In my business experience a LOT would. 

What company repeatedly stabs their customers in the backs like Canon does? I mean these sorts of things can't be avoided 100% by any company, the one I own included. But with Canon it almost seems pathological--like a kind of revenge for WWII--oops, did I say that?

Am I full of it, or does anyone else feel as frustrated as I am?

Oh, Sony, if you only provided a decent image and DPAF and skin tones that don't make people look like shape shifting weirdos from another planet.

Who provides a field camera that doesn't have to be tethered to a tripod, has a usable form factor, video features like peaking, waveform, and zebra; a camera that will give you a beautiful image from decent sized sensor, reasonably fast lenses, 2016 quality IS--and beautiful skin tones, and I don't have to mortgage my house to own it. Tell me and I'll buy it! Promise.

I'm not asking for the moon here. Just a camera that incorporates common technologies that have been found in cameras of almost all price levels for several years now. Andrew once wrote in his article on forgotten older cameras: "We're being diddled with."--I think that's the quote.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Agree with all of this, but image beats all for me so I can't see myself ever switching to Sony or Panasonic. Not only have I always found Canon's color science to be dramatically better, but the quality of the image itself just looks more filmic to my eyes. Not sure how to explain it exactly, but Sony has more of a "modern" feel to it whereas Canon is classically cinematic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members

What I love: Deliver what they promise.
Hate: Electronic aperture.

Im waiting on the prices of 5Dmkiii to come down even more. Meanwhile I bought an even earlier model of the line.
It was 100% new and unused, didn't cost much and delivers just as it should. 
Even features like "look to focus" which I would bet all my money wouldn't work on such an old camera, if it had not been a Canikon (both are solid as rocks imo).


And a few good old fashioned "Pet Tests"



(B&W was Fomapan200 in Neofin. Color was Ektar dev in room temperature)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any of these cameras, if handled properly with a modicum of lighting and color correction expertise, will produce a feature film-quality image, 4K or HD, 8-bit or RAW, full frame or micro 4/3. Stop complaining and shoot something. Back in the day, I used to drop what my C100 cost on film and processing for a single project. Now I can shoot many projects. With an 8-bit 4:2:0 image that'll hold up on any screen. And I can play back my dailies instantly.

Seriously, as time has gone on, people have been getting more and more disgruntled, despite the fact that the wealth of technology at our fingertips is simply staggering. I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

I don't see what is so special about Canon lenses at all. Nikon makes great lenses too! So does Sony and Panasonic and Olympus. And now so does Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/etc

Yes, all makers have some great lenses.

The thing is though that currently at least, Canon lenses adapt better than others do.

I use M4/3 and FF E mount currently and like to use the same lenses on both and I am amazed that Canon lenses (some anyway) work so well even for AF and IS on both my cameras.

I still do have a Nikon DSLR but an old one I no longer use.       I had a Canon DSLR last year but sold that and sold my last Pentax DSLR this year.      I have sold/given away/thrown out a lot of lenses and broken a couple as well.        Only a few Nikon lenses left -and older ones at that.      There is a smart adapter now for Nikon lenses on E mount but only the one and I don't think there are any for M4/3 yet.

Older Nikon lenses adapt well for dumb/manual focus use but not for "smart" use yet.

Then there is no lens I like as much as my 17 f4 L TS-E and nothing like it elsewhere (as yet).

My kit will end up being-    A few Canon EF mount lenses, a couple of Canon FD L lenses, a couple of native Sony E mount, a couple of M4/3 native lenses a few old adaptall lenses and some other odds and sods.       My old Nikon 50 1.8 F lens will be kept but as a backup only.      

Nikon lens mount is going to be their issue I think as you will be able to put together a decent system but just not adapt many other lenses because of the registration distance..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find Nikon lenses any easier or harder or cheaper to adapt.       When it comes to adapting lenses for manual focus without any communication they are all pretty much the same.    I have many adapters for many systems and all are pretty much a wash.

It is when it comes to smart adapters that communicate with the camera that (currently) there is no comparison.

Even my cheap Canon APSC 18-55 IS ii kit lens works for IS and AF on both my M4/3 and A7s- even eye AF and smile detect (covers FF for part of the range as well as APSC mode).

I have had the Nikon VR 1 and VR ii kit lenses and neither would work for me on any camera but my Nikon DSLR.

As for the Venus 17 TS lens, didn't that turn out to be an adapter that will turn the 12mm lens into a 17mm TS lens?      In any case, it isn't there yet and I doubt it will be as good as the current Canon (though I would expect it to be good for its price).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BrooklynDan said:

Any of these cameras, if handled properly with a modicum of lighting and color correction expertise, will produce a feature film-quality image, 4K or HD, 8-bit or RAW, full frame or micro 4/3. Stop complaining and shoot something.

The Sony FS700 S-Log 2 and a lot of the FS5 and FS7 footage is completely gross looking. 

The Sony F3 allowed me to, "just shoot something," the same way you can with a C300 or the Canon DSLR. The non Cine Alta Sony color science is a real problem. 

Bringing up film is relevant cost wise, but 16mm has never given me any issues besides price. Maybe we should bring up early digital formats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BrooklynDan said:

Seriously, as time has gone on, people have been getting more and more disgruntled, despite the fact that the wealth of technology at our fingertips is simply staggering. I don't get it.

While no one can rightly disagree with you, your comments and the digression to lenses misses my point altogether.

Yes, there have been fantastic advances beyond what most any of us could have hoped for or imagined. So, what about the grousing and disgruntled? I try to describe it in my last paragraph:

"I'm not asking for the moon here. Just a camera that incorporates common technologies that have been found in cameras of almost all price levels for several years now."

That is my point. The only reasons these things are not being brought together are bad, self-serving reasons for the corporations, not because they can't be done. THAT, in so far as I understand the matter, is at least part of the reason for disgruntlement: don't give me a camera with autofocus in every custom profile except the Log gamma profile I bought the camera for. Stop trying to dictate how I use the camera and telling me what my needs ought to be.
I have customers--and if I didn't listen to them, but rather tried to dictate the terms of uses of my products, I would not be in business for very long. The companies exist to serve and satisfy the market, not vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Just look at the prices for an adapter to control aperture for Canon EF vs Nikon F, heaps more!

In fact for Sony FZ mount it is prohibitively expensive on a budget. For RED One MX and Samsung NX it is nonexistent. 

But for all it is cheap and easy to use my Nikon F mount lenses on them.

Yes, smart adapters cost more than dumb ones mostly (but not always).

The thing is that the latest Nikon lenses ALSO need smart adapters to use on other cameras but for the most part there aren't any.        There IS now one for Sony E mount (I am not sure what Nikon lenses it will work with though).         Some dumb adapters cost as much or more as my cheapest EF to E smart adapter.

I have four different brand EF to E smart adapters ranging from less than $100 (and that is less in Australian dollars so well under $100 US) to a Metabones IV, I have a Kipon EF to M4/3 smart adapter but I also have a EF to M4/3 dumb focal reducer and a Nikon to M4/3 dumb focal reducer both of which were quite cheap (and both of which I find to be not great and hardly use)..       

I have many dumb adapters for Nikon to E, FD to E, FD to M4/3, FD to Pentax K, MC/MD to E, K to E, K to M4/3, MC/MD to M4/3 lots of others too (some for cameras I no longer can use like FD to Pentax Q, K to Q).      Some dumb adapters I have several copies.     The cost of most of these to me is the cheapest I could find on Ebay but I could have paid a lot more for some.

Some dumb adapters have aperture controls in the adapters - these tend to cost more too (I don't have any).    Some dumb adapters also may have issues focusing to infinity- more so with the cheapest ones.

    You pay for what you get but for the latest Nikon or Canon lenses to work properly, you need a smart adapter- lots available for Canon lenses and to several mounts, one currently for Nikon to one mount.         Older lenses depends- FD Canon is as easy as Nikon pre AI/AIS.


EDIT     The other thing is that with all those adapters to other cameras, there are very few that can be used to adapt others ON Nikon cameras.

I even have a couple of adapters for M4/3 lenses on E mount (fun adapting the Olympus 15mm bodycap lens which is a dumb lens anyway and I think the lens is BETTER on my A7s than it is on M4/3)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • EOSHD Pro Color 5 for All Sony cameras
    EOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
    EOSHD Dynamic Range Enhancer for H.264/H.265
  • Create New...