Current worst things about the systems

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jan 18, 2014.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Nikon: Poor QC
    Canon: Second-tier sensors
    Olympus: Noise at high ISO
    Fuji: Poor AF
    Sony (mirrorless): Poor AF
    Panasonic: Noise at high ISO
    Samsung: Weak system breadth
    Pentax: poor lens selection

    That's about it.
     
    RichA, Jan 18, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    snapper Guest

    Might be safer to stick to a box brownie.
     
    snapper, Jan 19, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    The safest route is to ignore RichA.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 19, 2014
    #3
  4. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    If it's about systems, better posted in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

    ... and to say poor QC about Nikon is about as nonsensical as the rest.

    FU set
     
    David Taylor, Jan 19, 2014
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    You could be right. I said "QC" problems, I should have said, GLARING design flaws.
    -D7000 focus problems.
    -D800 focus problems.
    -D600 oil/shutter problems.
     
    RichA, Jan 19, 2014
    #5
  6. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:35:18 AM UTC-5, David Taylor wrote:
    : > On 18/01/2014 20:44, RichA wrote:
    : >
    : > > Nikon: Poor QC
    : >
    : > > Canon: Second-tier sensors

    I wouldn't fault Canon's sensors. The 18MP sensors in my 7D's and my wife's
    T2i (possibly the same sensor) provide excellent image quality and pretty good
    noise control. The 15MP sensor in my backup camera, a 50D, is also good. And
    the new 70D has an innovative sensor that, if it works as well as they hope,
    could represent a quantum improvement. So at least they're trying.

    What I do fault them for is the lack of a midrange f/2.8 zoom lens for their
    APS-C bodies. My 17-55mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II are both excellent
    lenses; but when I have them both mounted, there's a sizable gap. Canon makes
    several lenses that cover that gap, but they bottom out at 24mm, which isn't
    wide enough on APS-C. (I think we can all agree that carrying three cameras
    isn't a viable option!)

    Sigma makes a well regarded 50-150 f/2.8 with stabilization, and I guess I'd
    buy it in a minute if it worked on FF. Much as I like APS-C cameras for event
    work (they're noticeably lighter), I don't want to be locked into it.

    Maybe the other manufactures are just as deficient in this area; I haven't
    kept up with them very well. Or maybe I'm the only one who cares?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 19, 2014
    #6
  7. Is the space between 55mm and 70mm really a problem? A few feet closer
    or further back covers it. Maybe only a foot or less. Or is there
    something else I am not considering?
     
    John McWilliams, Jan 19, 2014
    #7
  8. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    A few feet closer or farther away changes perspective.

    You can't just walk out onto a basketball court during a game or a
    racetrack during a race to frame the shot you want.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 19, 2014
    #8
  9. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <lbgsjg$1oc$>, says...
    : >
    : > On 1/19/14 PDT, 6:55 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > >
    : > > What I do fault them for is the lack of a midrange f/2.8 zoom lens for their
    : > > APS-C bodies. My 17-55mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II are both excellent
    : > > lenses; but when I have them both mounted, there's a sizable gap. Canon makes
    : > > several lenses that cover that gap, but they bottom out at 24mm, which isn't
    : > > wide enough on APS-C. (I think we can all agree that carrying three cameras
    : > > isn't a viable option!)
    : >
    : > Is the space between 55mm and 70mm really a problem? A few feet closer
    : > or further back covers it. Maybe only a foot or less. Or is there
    : > something else I am not considering?

    Yes. I'm not a wedding photographer; and at the events I cover, I'm usually a
    spectator with little control over the proceedings. Even though I can usually
    get the participants to hold still for a couple of shots, I'm often pointedly
    reminded that time is short and I can't slow things down very much.

    : A few feet closer or farther away changes perspective.
    :
    : You can't just walk out onto a basketball court during a game or a
    : racetrack during a race to frame the shot you want.

    The same applies at, say, a City Council Inauguration, where the chamber is
    crammed with relatives and friends of the Councillors and space is at a
    premium. If I've staked out a good spot, I'm reluctant to compromise it by
    moving around any more than I have to. And the audience, many of whom are also
    taking pictures, don't appreciate it if they can't reliably predict where I'll
    be.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 19, 2014
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    The only issue I have with them is noise at higher ISO's compared with some others, no other issues. However, I will say I've not heard tales of woe about dead pixels from Canon users which I often hear from Nikon users.
     
    RichA, Jan 19, 2014
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    All of the shortcomings I mentioned are easily verified.
     
    RichA, Jan 19, 2014
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.