> > > From: Chip Louie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > IMO, Canon in the last few years has started to drive the > high-end market > > > with gee-wiz technology to get people to buy it's pro > products (newer is > > > better, NOT!). > > > > First it was music with CD's then it was operating systems > with Windoze, > > > then movies fell with the compromise that is DVD and DD 5.1, now it's > > > photographs falling to bits... > > > The list has been kind of quite lately so I though this might > > > help it along. > > Well, I am unsure if this will "help it along," as suggested but > I can't agree with much of > what you say. > > The 400 DO: I was interested in this lens initially. No so much > for what it is, as I did > not figure it a viable replacement for the EF300/2.8L IS which I > have already. The latter > is more versatile and, with the EF1.4, the same speed and only a > little heavier. The price > of the DO lens, if it really reflects Canon's manufacturing > costs, does not bode well for > what I truly was interested in, a 600/4 DO or even an 800/5.6 DO. > It seems doubtful these > will be happening soon and, if they did, the cost would be prohibitive. > That the 400 DO does not live up to the EF series in sharpness > and contrast seem to be less > debatable with time and that is truly unfortunate. > > That hardly seems to justify a slam against Canon's strong suit > which, as I see it, is > innovation and leading edge technology. I bought a pair of > Canon's IS binoculars a couple > of years ago. I was so impressed that, when it came time to buy a > 300/2.8, I could not see > buying Nikon, the brand I had been using since 1972. I have been > delighted with my > Ef300/2.8L and EF600/4L IS lenses and the Canon wireless flash > system. IMO, these are > leading edge products that Nikon is not competing with. > > I personally am not prepared to sacrifice image quality for > convenience. So no DO lens for > me. No 1D either, at least not yet. The cost of these tools is > too high for me to be > willing to accept anything other than the best image quality > possible. Still, I yearn for > digital and feel it will "get there" before too many more years. > > Still, I do not agree with you, Chip. These are tools, whose > compromises are acceptable for > many, photojournalists especially. Also, I consider both "a work > in progress." The DO will > either get better, or fall precipitately in price. The concept > will not likely survive as a > single, image-compromised, inordinately expensive lens. > Digital will supplant film in the not too distant future for just > about everyone. Not yet, > no. That I agree on but "photographs falling to bits." A bit > much that last one! :>) > > I hope Canon continues to be the pioneer in bringing new concepts > to the marketplace. It > was IS that brought me into the fold and, years after they > brought it to market, there are > still no real competitors. > > As for the other remarks, I was never convinced that there was > ANYTHING superior about > vinyl over CDs! Would I ever go back to "the phonograph?" You > gott'a be kidding! "Windoze," > well I fight with it daily too but how can you slam it as if it > is worse than DOS? That is > where it truly evolved from . . . and it continues to evolve. > > Innovation is Canon's very reason for being for being, IMO. I > hope they don't change!. > > -- > Terence A. Danks > Nature & Wildlife Photography >
Hi Terence, Sounds like you mostly agree with what I posted and like myself are reluctant to shed the money that Canon is willing to charge for the DO lenses and EOS 1D for lesser image quality. Don't get me wrong, I'm not slamming Canon, I'm 100% happy that Canon is the absolute leader in the high-end SLR (both film and digital IMO), marketplace and as such continues to be an incredible innovator in photography and imaging. BUT, I DO wish they would innovate in the lab and bring only practical, reliable, optically superior products to the market at better prices. Of course if you look at Nikon's prices Canon IS offering all that I ask! The DO lenses IMO don't offer anything of real value except that they are on the bleeding edge of regular production lens technology. The 400DO is only slightly lighter and smaller then a conventional EF 300 2.8L and offers IMO less flexibility, less speed and lower optical performance at what appears to me a very cruel price. At this price point, I'd rather buy a nice used EF 300 2.8L AND EF 400 2.8L IS and have incredible flexibility with the EF 1.4X and EF 2X AND MUCH better optical performance to boot! As to vinyl vs. standard CDs You must not have had a good enough audio system to hear the not so subtle losses incurred with CD and even a very good ($1,000 and up), CD player. They are obvious if you listen and have an audio system with enough resolution. But of course that was the beauty of marketing CD's. Even a better than average audio system at the time of the introduction of CD's sounded better than vinyl in all of the obvious ways. CD have less surface noise, are less prone to damage than vinyl are easier to use properly, but the killer was they are convenient. Consumers are lazy and that spelled the end of the game for vinyl. The CD format won because consumers are willing to accept moderately good stuff if it's cheap and they like new. They don't care that it breaks more often and doesn't work as well because they like to buy new ones with new features that they don't understand and can't use but MUST have! Never mind that vinyl sounds better if given the right audio equipment, the average consumer is not serious about music and won't spend the money to realize the real potential of vinyl. As for digital audio there have been several attempts since the intro of the CD audio standard to improve the obvious problems with CD sound. All rebuffed by the corporations that control and profit from the market. Well now music and CD sales are sagging and they are threatened by MP3 and other new portable audio formats that they no longer can control (read this as make money from), so NOW they are willing to get behind a new digital audio standard that finally offers real analog level quality. Of course they are the ones in control of the performers AND the new better audio standards and will make all the money. UNIX has been around for a long time and is most likely the O/S that your internet provider is using to provide you access. UNIX is incredibly stable and applications running under it rarely fail and the O/S itself almost never crashes on its' own unless helped by a hardware or environmental problem. I had a new client that had their UNIX system uptime command showing over three years of continuous uptime serving over 90 terminals in 8 locations all through analog lines and MUXs! It had NEVER crashed or had power turned off in over 3 years of 24X7 business use! So why don't we all have UNIX systems running in our basement? Because consumers are lazy. Too lazy to type or learn to use a simple interface that works well because it's different than DOS, too lazy to standup and say to their boss that there is a better way than being in constant beta test mode for Microsoft's newest version of the Windoze O/S. Lazy, inert and simply falling downhill unwilling to pedal a bit to get to the crest of the hill. Sigh. Don't even get me started on high performance digital imaging! I want an EOS 1d so bad it hurts but I won't pay the ridiculous prices Canon is commanding to do a beta test for Canon with an unfinished product that they knew had problems when they released it and that may never have the bugs worked out before the next version with its own new bugs comes out. Help? You've helped plenty! Now I gotta go take some anti-depressants. 8^) Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
