New Canon T6i

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by MadMarco, Feb 6, 2015.

  1. MadMarco

    MadMarco Mu-43 Veteran

    298
    Oct 30, 2014
    Guildford, England
    I am still amazed that anyone is selling a DSLR or DSLR type camera that doesn't have 2 control dials.

    Only Canon would have the nerve to sell a camera body for $750 with only one control dial, it really kills the usability. You have to spend $850 on the T6s to get 2 control dials, well done Canon marketing team. What bugs me most about the Canon DSLR range is how they remove features costing nothing to implement just to make sure that they don't cannibalise the high range models.

    For example the bracketing option on the 700D were 3 images +- 2ev which makes it all but useless for HDR. It's a software feature that costs nothing to implement, just like time-lapse and bulb timer.

    This is why I ditched Canon and went back to Olympus; unless you are prepared to spend a fortune on top end bodies, you get equipment that has been intentionally crippled.

    <End of rant>
     
  2. yakky

    yakky Mu-43 Top Veteran

    662
    Jul 1, 2013
    How hard is the pseudo second dial on Canon? On Nikon you hold a button, which is NBD. I could give a crap about two dials.
     
  3. Halaking

    Halaking Mu-43 Top Veteran

    667
    Dec 17, 2012
    Los Angeles
    Morris
    Don't underestimate Canon users, one control dial is totally fine, easier operation and best UI.
     
  4. PeeBee

    PeeBee Mu-43 Top Veteran

    662
    Sep 17, 2012
    UK
    Its normal for a manufacturer to offer a hierarchical product range and what Canon appear to have done here is to introduce a new level without increasing the price point. The release price of the S model is the same as my 600D / T3i was back in 2011.
     
  5. hookgrip

    hookgrip Mu-43 Regular

    150
    May 21, 2013
    Your rant makes no sense at all. Camera manufacturers, including Olympus, have been doing that for a very long time. Back when Olympus made DSLRs, the E-420 and E-520 only had a single command dial. Even the latest E-PL7 only has a single command dial. I don't understand why you single out Canon when just about every camera manufacturer segments their products by removing features such as the second control dial. Nikon does it, Sony does it, Pentax does it, and Olympus is no exception.

    Olympus is no better at intentionally crippling their camera bodies. With Olympus, if you want a IS system that actually works and doesn't blur your photos at certain shutter speeds, you have to spend big bucks for an E-M5 or E-M1. The 2-axis IS system on their cheaper bodies has been proven to cause more blur at a range of shutter speeds (e.g. https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=35882, https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=22568, https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=48925, https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=35127)

    I'd say that Olympus putting a dysfunctional IBIS system into all of their lower-end cameras is much worse than Canon taking out 1 control dial.
     
  6. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 5, 2013
    Dan
    I went from a Rebel to a 20D for the extra control dial. But I know some people who do just fine with one dial. I don't like it. But I guess if its what you learn on and get used to it's no big deal. I wouldn't mind having a 7D MKII, but the lenses I'd want with it would cost a ton.
     
  7. MadMarco

    MadMarco Mu-43 Veteran

    298
    Oct 30, 2014
    Guildford, England
    I disagree with this statement, the shutter shock that you are talking about has nothing to do with 2, 3, 5 axis IS. The shutter of a mirrorless cameras is open until an exposure is made; the first shutter close action prior to the sensor being exposed, sends a shock wave through the camera and lens. Testing by others and personal experience shows that some lenses are more prone to it than others. My 12-40 exhibits no issues with shutter shock, whereas my 14-150 shows the issue to some degree. My E-PL2 (2-axis IS) which I used with the 14-150 lens exhibited no shutter shock at all over thousands of pictures so go figure. The E-M10 with zero-shock also shows no issues with the otherwise troublesome 14-150.

    The reports from users would seem to indicated that the 5-axis E-M5 suffered much worse than the 3-axis E-M10 ever did, to the point where Olympus released a firmware update introducing zero-shock to the camera. Shutter shock isn't exclusively related to IS or even to mirrorless cameras. It's a phenomenon that also affects DSLRs (primarily by the mirror moving), but is less apparent due in part to the shear bulk of the camera providing a degree of dampening and also some manufacturers utilising electronic first curtain shutters. In short, it isn't related to IS (If you turn off IBIS, it's still there).

    I agree with you on this and it makes sense to some extent. Replacing more expensive sensors, simplifying IS systems, using cheaper mirrors instead of prisms, removing potentially expensive PDAF systems, cheaper build materials in general all make sense to reach a price point. My point is how much does a dial cost them when you are already building a button assembly (a few pence)? God knows there is enough room on the camera to fit it in. And removing stuff that costs nothing from the software menus of the camera is a lousy way to treat your customers.
     
  8. hookgrip

    hookgrip Mu-43 Regular

    150
    May 21, 2013
    Again, regardless of whether you like it or not, that's something every manufacturer does, including Olympus. I think it's very short-sighted to single out Canon for such actions when it is something that is done by every manufacturer. It's pretty common to feel the need to defend one's camera brand especially after a brand switch, but that doesn't make it any less short-sighted. Look at the entry-level cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Panasonic, and yes, even Olympus, and you will see that they all only feature one main control dial.

    Why do you bash Canon for having 1 control dial on their entry-level Rebel line but excuse Olympus for doing the same on their entry-level E-PM and midrange E-PL lines? The same could be said of Nikon and their D3xxx/D5xxx line, Pentax K-x/K-r, Sony A3000, and the list goes on...
     
  9. MadMarco

    MadMarco Mu-43 Veteran

    298
    Oct 30, 2014
    Guildford, England
    I really don't understand your aggressive response, I can only assume that you are a Canon fan. I've never owned a Nikon DSLR so can't comment, I like that Sony is pushing the boundaries with mirror-less although I don't own one and I've not defended Olympus anywhere is this post.

    I've singled out Canon because they've just released a new camera that has again been limited by no/very low-cost omissions (very limited bracketing, no time-lapse, no micro-focus). All these are in the higher end models and cost absolutely nothing to implement, it's marketing that stops it. I don't see Olympus or Sony removing software features from there lower end models, the most recently released camera usually has better features than the older models. The E-M10 has a broader feature set than the E-M5, the E-M5II has a broader feature set than the E-M1. You're not going to see Canon do this any time soon.
     
  10. hookgrip

    hookgrip Mu-43 Regular

    150
    May 21, 2013
    For the record, I currently shoot a Nikon. I formerly owned both Canon FF and Olympus M4/3, so I consider myself pretty even-keeled as far as brands go. What I don't like seeing is unfounded brand-bashing threads on these forums.

    Your last line, which I bolded, is unfortunately factually incorrect, especially the "you're not going to see Canon do this any time soon" part. For example, are you aware that the Rebel T6 series carries the same 19-point, all-cross type AF system that was formerly in the EOS 7D? The Rebel line now has a better AF system than all of Canon's midrange cameras up to the 60D, and the Rebel even has a better AF system than the $2000 full-frame 6D.

    Sure, the Rebels are missing some features, but that's a very normal thing done by all manufacturers. Nikon leaves out AF Microadjust in their lower-end cameras as well. Olympus leaves out the viewfinder in all of their lower-end E-PM and E-PL cameras, and even on the high-end E-P5! If Sony can stick an EVF into a $299 A3000, why should Olympus be excused when they don't do the same? Heck, Sony's A6000 has 2 control dials AND a high-res EVF, while the similarly priced E-PL7 has neither. Just some food for thought.
     
  11. MadMarco

    MadMarco Mu-43 Veteran

    298
    Oct 30, 2014
    Guildford, England
    Although they still missed out a bunch of no-cost software features, there's really no excuse for this.

    I suspect that this is more to do with size and the format of the camera. Sure it is possible to include an EVF in a small bodied camera, but at what cost? The Sony RX100-III has one, but it's not a great implementation. More concerning about these cameras is the lack of built in flash. I'd really like a E-PM as a second body, but the lack of built in flash makes it a no-no. I'd happily have a Panasonic, but they don't have IBIS on their compact bodies... Maybe one day
     
  12. PeeBee

    PeeBee Mu-43 Top Veteran

    662
    Sep 17, 2012
    UK
    Rebels are and always have been an entry level product, aimed at newcomers and the casual hobbyist. Their simplicity is by design as not to be intimidating to the less experienced user. Perhaps Canon (along with some other established manufacturers) consider that adding features such as focus micro adjust and complex bracketing options unnecessary in a product aimed at this market segment? They do offer advanced features in their products aimed at the more experienced user, and its perfectly acceptable to expect a price premium on these features whether hardware or software based. That’s Canon’s strategy and yes, it may differ to other manufacturers, but it’s one that works for them.


    I agree that at a given price point, mirrorless cameras are generally more feature rich than a comparably priced DSLR. DSLR’s are a well established format so mirrorless cameras need to offer an attractive feature set in order to steal market share. Mirrorless cameras may also be cheaper to manufacture due to the reduced mechanical complexity, allowing for additional software development costs whilst remaining competitive. Some features are simply not possible with an optical VF. Canon and Nikon are well established brands and will sale units on brand strength alone. Other manufacturers may need to push the boundaries in order to compete with them.

    Its easy to understand why someone switching from m4/3 to a similarly priced Rebel might feel cheated by the feature set, but then not everyone wants the complexity that comes with an endless and sometimes unnecessary array of options. I’ve seen many posts complaining about the complexity of Olympus’s menu structure. My EPM1 is my cheapest but without doubt most complicated camera. Whilst I’m happy to delve through a vast number of menu options, many of which I never use, I know many people who would find it too much. They would prefer a simple camera that gives them good results, like a Rebel.

    I get on fine with just one dial (or even no dial in the case of my EPM1). I had a second dial on my G2 but haven’t really missed it so far on the G5. The features I frequently accessed by the second dial are just as easily accessed via buttons. I haven’t (yet - no third party lenses!) felt the need for focus micro adjust (I guess that either all my official Canon lenses focus ok or I’m just not that fussy) or comprehensive bracketing options on my Rebel. It would be nice to have such features, but I accept that at this price point, they are not an option. Damn you Canon!! Time lapse and bulb timer can be achieved with a cheap third party remote shutter release (a perk of a mainstream product range).

    Personally, I think Canon have been lazy over the past few years but the announcement of the new T6 range specification could mean that they’ve finally realised that the rest of the world isn’t sitting still. I wasn’t tempted by the T4 or T5 updates but the T6 looks quite interesting so far (once the price drops) and I’m optimistic about this release. :smile:
     
  13. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    This is no longer true ;
    E-M10 and e-pL7 both have a version of the so-called-5-axis IBIS now called 3-axis.
    (I wish they would rename the systems)
     
  14. hookgrip

    hookgrip Mu-43 Regular

    150
    May 21, 2013
    I would also like to know your opinions on Olympus's intentional gimping of the new FL-LM3 flash. The flash is an extremely attractively option for Micro 4/3 cameras: it's very compact, tilts 90 degrees, and has 180 degree right/left rotation, making it a huge improvement over the older non-bounceable flashes that came bundled with Olympus cameras. It's also very reasonably priced at just $59.95 from Olympus. Because of its size, this flash would be perfectly balanced on many of the smaller Micro 4/3 bodies where a larger flash looks completely ridiculous (the E-P5 or E-PL7, for example).

    However, Olympus purposely decided to make this flash incompatible with any Micro 4/3 camera except the new E-M5 II. As you said in your original post, it wouldn't have cost them anything to make it compatible since all Olympus cameras have the same hot-shoe. Since you feel strongly about Canon taking oout "no-cost" features, how do you feel about Olympus doing the same thing to the FL-LM3?

    http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/fl-lm3-flash.html

    DPreview image:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  15. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    They couldn't have made it compatible, and no they don't all have the same hot shoe now that the E-M5 Mk2 is out. The fact that they made any flashes that required the accessory port at all in the first place was dumb, and the new design is much better IMO. I'm just disappointed they didn't switch sooner. No future Olympus body will have an accessory port now, and all will have the new power pin. Progress!

    What may work, however, is making a new shoe to old accessory port adaptor...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. MadMarco

    MadMarco Mu-43 Veteran

    298
    Oct 30, 2014
    Guildford, England
    Might be worth checking eBay in 6 months to see what the after-market can come up with!!!
     
  17. MadMarco

    MadMarco Mu-43 Veteran

    298
    Oct 30, 2014
    Guildford, England
    I think that you're really starting to clutch at straws, the loss of the accessory port on a camera with an EVF isn't what I would call a negative. This new approach opens up a lot more options for 3rd parties to produce flashes that use the internal battery. It also reduces the hight of the camera and cleans up the design a little bit.

    How is it gimping, there is no way to power the new flash with an older body because the hardware isn't there. They've not removed anything (I checked my camera in case Olympus engineers had broken into my house and removed something from my E-M10, but everything is still there). If a future E-M10 Mk2 or E-PL8 is released without the power pin, then I'd agree that the camera had been gimped. I expect all new cameras from Olympus to be able to use the new flash.
     
  18. hookgrip

    hookgrip Mu-43 Regular

    150
    May 21, 2013
    Grasping at straws? I don't think so at all. I'm merely applying to Olympus the same logic that you apply to Canon.

    Honestly, it would have probably cost Olympus less to design a flash that used 2 AA or AAA batteries instead of designing a new hot-shoe entirely. That way they could still have removed the hot-shoe AND would have had a flash compatible with older cameras, not to mention using the flash wouldn't hurt the E-M5's already mediocre battery life as the flash wouldn't draw power from the camera.

    But, of course they did it on purpose to remove backwards compatibility in order to push people to upgrade cameras. Say what you want about Canon, but at least with them, you can go out, buy a used 550EX flash which was introduced almost 20 years ago, and it will work 100% on every current EOS DSLR. Just like any other big company, Olympus's goal is to make a profit, not to do what's in the best interest of the consumer. In the end, every company is guilty to some extent as far as crippling features or taking out backwards compatibility, which is why I think it's rather pointless to single out one brand (Canon in this case).
     
  19. MadMarco

    MadMarco Mu-43 Veteran

    298
    Oct 30, 2014
    Guildford, England
    You're pretty much trolling now and your argument is getting rather thin.

    It's a flash that's given away as a bundle, as far I am aware it's not for sale as a separate package and probably never will be. How is this limiting what you can do? I can't use the built in flash on my E-M10 on any other camera that has ever been made, same for any other built in flash. You're acting like Olympus is forcing you to buy it; they're not, you get it bundled for free use it or don't. If you own an existing Olympus retail flash or compatible then this still works, nothing on the camera has been limited. With the exception of the built in flashes (remember that you can't use these on other cameras) exactly how many flash units do Canon/Nikon bundle with their cameras? I'm merely applying to Canon the same logic that you apply to Olympus.

    Please explain how this pushes people to upgrade cameras? An E-M10 user or any other Olympus user already has a flash with their camera, if they want a twist/bounce flash then they can buy one from any manufacturer not just Olympus. They can be had for £40 if you want to go cheap. Only a muppet would replace their camera so that they can use a bundled flash with a very mediocre guide number.

    I anything, there is an argument to be had for Olympus not planning their product roadmap to a sufficient extent.
     
  20. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Would have been better to just add 2 AAA batteries. Sure you would have to keep spares but it would have been universal at least.