Like it or not, Canon is one of the most dominant forces in the camera industry, and their bodies and lenses can be found in the hands of countless professionals and hobbyists. Of course, that does not mean the company is infallible, however. This interesting video discusses the good and bad of Canon cameras and what they can do to be even better in the future.
Coming to you from DPReview TV, this great video discusses the good and bad aspects of the Canon system. For me, the best part is definitely the lenses. Even when Sony was blazing ahead of other companies in the early days of full frame mirrorless, I could never completely make the switch simply because I loved my lenses so much. And now, my workhorse lens is the spectacular RF 28-70mm f/2 L USM, which is like three or four primes rolled into one convenient lens. The one exception is their new supertelephoto primes, which I have discussed here, which are arguably quite overpriced, especially in comparison to Nikon's new NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S. Still, they have my favorite lens ecosystem, and as long as that's the case, that'll guide my purchasing decisions. Check out the video above for more.
My first camera was a Canon 6d so that is all I have to go off of for my own personal experience with Canon. I switched to Nikon and have never looked back. My personal problems with Canon were 1. Dynamic Range, I have been told this is fixed now (finally). 2. The cost or both new & used lens and upper end bodies. Back when jumped ship to Nikon I was able to find a lightly used d810 for 1200 dollars on ebay and a mint used Nikon 16-35 f4 for 700 dollars. At that point I couldn’t find a really used Canon 5div for under 2300 on a good day or a 5diii for 1500. You probably still can’t find a used Canon f4 16-35mm lens for under 1300. The 3rd thing that I personally don’t like about Canon was working with the colors. I know everyone raves about Canon colors, but for me, I like Nikons better. The Canon greens and reds were the ones I specifically didn’t like, but again thats been fixed as I was told.
From whats been explained to me is Canon has fixed all these things and that the new mirrorless line is extremely good. Personally I don’t think I'll ever switch back due to the cost of such a move so taking other peoples word on it is good enough for me. Plus meh, I ultimately don’t care that much! Hahaha
I have yet to sell my 6D because it's the first camera I've been able to use that I didn't care much about the iso being used. The color is amazing and while I don't think it's a sharp sensor like the 5d3, when the garbage AF actually hits properly it can make amazing results.
That is one camera if it could be retrofit with a better AF ship, wow the pictures it could take...
I started with Canon in the film days. Moved to a 20D in 2005 and stayed with Canon until a few years ago. I currently shoot with Sony. Not used an R series, have no interest in them either, so don't know if this criticism applies to them...
I hated that I could shoot ISO 1600 only in the most desperate of circumstances (or where shooting mono). Higher was unusable. Now I regularly shoot ISO 4000 or even 8000 and hardly ever worry.
Shadow recovery... Man... EttR for every Canon EOS D series camera I've had. Don't have that concern any more.
Browns and reds were very bad for digital noise. Not great for banding either when boosting them.
I really enjoyed the shooting experience with Canon, even after my flirtation with Panasonic, however I now enjoy the freedom and flexibility that Sony brings. Exp compensation is faster and easier to tweak and the feature-set so customisable (quick-menu is your friend, or you'll be in purgatory).
I have been taking photos with Canon cameras since 1996 with a Canon EOS Elan II E. My first digital SLR was D60. I currently shoot with an R5. The R5 has been an truly significant improvement in performance to me from all my previous Canon DSLR. From the flexibility and accuracy of the autofocus to the flexibility in post of its RAW files to recover highlights and shadows to its high ISO performance plus very high resolution. It has made anew all my EF lenses, which I still have. I am not a knowledgeable video shooter so I won’t comment on this area. My only complains were the freezing issues that seem resolved with the current firmware and of course the battery life. I am overall very happy with my current kit.
This article reminds me of the PC gearheads debating Intel VS AMD or Nvidia vs whomever. Boring. If you get the results you want with the tools you have, that's it. I haven't noticed, but has DPReview made similar videos debating the good and bad of Sony and Nikon cameras? If not, they have lost credibility and appear to be focusing on the negatives of Canon systems. I've noticed that there are generally fewer Canon related articles on DPReview's website than competitor equipment.
That's fine but all systems have their plusses and minuses. I don't believe DPReview is truly objective and unbiased.
When I upgraded from the 6D to the 5Dm4 I was pretty disappointed. Of the reviews I had read it was a "significant" upgrade from the previous III, but all I really found to be great was the touch to focus/shoot LCD screen update. Other than that the ISO capabilities were marginal, and the shadow retention was absolute garbage compared to the older 6D.
When I started to dabble in video it was a no brained to me; A7iii. Not only that but shadow recovery in photo was like nothing I had previously experienced. But the menu was a problem for me. Not because it was clunky, but because I was so used to the way my canons operated.
After a few years with the Sony, I decided to move back to Canon with the R5. Mostly because I was begrudgingly dragging the 5D out for photo and using the Sony for video. The ability to shoot 4K60 in video was what sold me with the R5. And the shadow detail for photo was way better than I had experienced with any canon camera. I shoot interiors and landscape, so autofocus was never a huge a big problem, but when adapting canon glass for the Sony on video, the times I used the MC11 to focus video shots I just saw the camera constantly hunting for focus. It drove me insane.
With all this said, I have edited video content from the A7iv now and sooc it has absolutely beautiful color. But it's apples to oranges to me. Both systems are great in their own right, it's more about comfort for me now. I'd love to get my hands on a GFX100 or a Red Komodo to try out one day and I'll probably fall in love with those one day too. The day and age we live in with camera ability is ridiculous and I don't think you can really go wrong choosing one brand or another.
The thing that drives me most nuts over every brand: all the fan boy BS about why one is better than another.
Show me a camera in today's world that takes bad pictures and I'll show you a lousy photographer. The cameras we can buy today are all good. Yea, some are marginally better in one aspect or another, but you take a camera that has been produced in the last 5 years and you know what you're doing, you will take excellent pictures.
I like Canon because first, it feels like it belongs in my hand. Beyond that, it produces the results that I require. Would I switch? I could see me moving to Nikon because the in hand ergonomics are quite similar, but I don't have that sort of money to make a switch.
The long and short of it.....if you can't get good results with today's cameras, it ain't the camera's fault.
I know that's a popular stance but as far as the headline goes, that's not the point, that's a different conversation entirely.
I love the way Canon feels and their support especially compared to nikon. That said, if I had the extra cash I would get a Nikon z62.. the body feels fantastic, is completely modern and I have less worry about missing features than with mid-tier Canon body.
Fun video. Those guys really crank out the videos! Regarding Canon, clearly Canon is doing something right, since they have the largest market share. But I jumped ship and went to Sony, and if my wallet had more cash in it, I would also own an OM Systems OM-1 + lenses. This is all because of how Canon handled the M 50 Mark II and the M-mount system, and also how a jump to full-frame means staying at very low-res sensors (20-24 Mpx). I still have great respect for Canon, but the techie in me moved on.
You should see the difference between files from the m62 and the early M series cameras. I don't know if it's just adobe's profiles but pictures are amazingly grey and flat in comparison.
I still have old bodies like the t2i, which had amazing color reproduction (6d also).
Many of them are great cameras and I have tried them a few times. They just bore me for whatever reason. I really don't care for the white lenses either. To each their own.
Canons shadow recovery and dynamic range was total ass. you had to shoot over exposed to get decent shadows which is why i assume is one of the reasons the blown out highlight look for weddings and family photos became a thing. I'm sure it's better now but back then it was trash tier.
For gods sake Canon. Put the on-off switch on the grip side of the camera so I can pick up the camera, turn it on and take a photo in one sweeping motion or with my other hand occupied.
The ridiculous segmentation. That's how we ended up with a 6d with what is possibly the worst autofocus system in the last 10 or 15 years; 6d2 with a worse sensor than the first version; incredibly chopped down RP even for the price; and now the R6 which is nearly $3,000 with only 20 stinking megapixels.
The R6 was supposed to be my next camera. But that 20 megapixels is just not attractive at all.
Canon absolutely sucks at mid-range/prosumer cameras. (1-2k).The crop mid rangers don't even exist anymore, and if you count the 90d (essentially DOA) has noted soft focus issues which may or may not be down to stabilization.
Instead of covering all the bases with the best camera for its particular market segment, at least from mid to low end it's all about leaving out features. They've always done that...it sucked then and it sucks now.
Now we're going to have a situation with a R mount crop camera? NICE...But there's no crop lenses for R.
+ Ludicrous prices for R mount L glass. It would be utterly insane to ditch my current lenses to replace them for $7/8,000!?? + Good luck with Non L glass. The only one may be worth a look is the 85 but that's only f2. Sheesh.
Hmmmmm....FS posted an article about winners and losers. 3900+ photographers were questioned. Of the top 4 cameras used by this particular group, the 5DIV was #1, and the R5 was #3. The Nikon D850 was second and the Sony A7R4 was fourth with Canon being the clear #1 overall.
Certainly not a definitive study, but.......
"6d2 with a worse sensor than the first version"
yeah that actually blew my mind when that camera came out. The crowd really went mild for that one.