I am guessing this is a hand me down lens and camera Joel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Eade
When I upgraded to the Version II it took me almost 9 months to sell the version I. Later I regretted selling it. It was a heck of a lens.
Printable View
I am guessing this is a hand me down lens and camera Joel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Eade
When I upgraded to the Version II it took me almost 9 months to sell the version I. Later I regretted selling it. It was a heck of a lens.
So to clarify it's not nessarily the fact they operate right at the fringe, which I don't have access to a mark one lens to measure it's draw and verify that theory. But it's definately possible. It's the fact that you couldn't design a camera that took millions of dollars of developmet to drive the AF of a lens from 15 years ago but somehow managed to drive the newer version? I'm sure they could have designed it to work. Add a few extra miliamps if need be, lots of third party battery's have a bump in capacity.
Same thing with the overheating issues, a complete amature was able to find solutions for for the overheating but Canon couldn't? They admitted that it was for marketing purposes and likey because they didn't want to compete with other product lines.
Same with this. They have their reasons why. But this is not conspiracy theory. It's blatantly obvious and not exactly new to Canon.
I know it's not a 1-series, and even at 12fps it still won't be matching the FPS of the 1-series. But it's the needless limitations like this that I find irritating. Because you can buy an R6 for quite a reasonable price, matching it with the already quite good 500mm or 600mm mark one lenses and you have a solid birding combo if it would shoot at 12 or even just 10 FPS that would be awesome. So it totally makes sense to pair it like that.
If you have the 1DX III or R5, I get it. You spent this much on the camera you can probably spring for the Mark II. But still, not a fan of how they do that.
I know it sounds like I am hating on Canon, and really I am not. If I was I wouldn't be shooting their stuff for this long. But I do sometimes get a little worked up by things like this. For that I probably need to chill a bit.
But I do think it is worth pointing out nonetheless, from my knowledge Canon does notice when enough people complain about something. Just like how the improved the video recording times of the R5. So I think it is definitely worth discussing.
I think a good way to test the theory out is to measure the amp draw of the Mark 1 and Mark 2 lenses. See how much, if any difference there actually is. Maybe some super thin copper strips and a volt meter?
One night playing poker I met a Pro that only used Nikon. He was still mad about how Canon handled the FD to EF lens change over. Forcing people to buy EF lenses.
He hated Canon with a passion.
Not exactly .... I had already sold my 500mm Version I and purchased a used 600mm Version II. I also had a Version I 300mm f/2.8L which was sitting on the shelf way more than it was being used. When my son began to show a real interest in birds I did give him my 1D MKIV body and then I traded the 300 at Adorama for the 500 version I that he is now using. Just turns out that it is a really good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Haha, I'm far from being anywhere near that mad. And that was definitely a different scenario anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
But I think things like this are good to voice because like the video functionality being updated with a firmware. It literally could be as simple as a firmware update as well.
Same thing with Canon getting rid of focusing at f/8 on the 1Dx. It was a senseless delete of a important feature. Sure it is not the end of the world, but still.
I can go on and on, but I'll pull back on the reins.