« on: November 09, 2014, 08:02:10 PM »
DR may not have improved at base ISO, but it has improved at higher ISOs where most sports and wildlife shots take place (high shutter speed and low light). Improvements where it's needed.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Would you really want to shoot a football game with a camera you have not become familiar with? It will take longer than one day just to get through the manual and settings.The manual is online and I don't imagine it's going to be that much different from any other Canon camera, except maybe AF and those settings are already on the newer bodies.
No, not the same situation at all. Canon has to compete with Nikon, Sony, and the others. The other companies are what give Canon their incentive to innovate.I tend to disagree, having such a monopoly on sensors would be bad for innovation.
I agree with your disagreement (huh? )
Is this not the situtation we have with Canon? Canon SLRs only uses Canon sensors, so any innovation of the sensors used in Canon cameras must come from Canon. Is not more likely that Canon will drift along trying to sell their existing sensors for as long as they can in order to reduce costs (increase profits)?
Canon is not going to innovate their sensors simply because a newer technology is there. Canon will innovate their sensors only if they feel they can make a business case of lowering costs/increasing profits.
Once you get your customers hooked with a big expensive lens kit, you can innovate the sensor when ever you feel like it.... or not.
The customers have hairs that are shorter, and Canon has a pretty good grip on them.
Being held to ransom - well that's what contracts are for. So that's nonsense too.No, it isn't nonsense. If there is only ONE sensor supplier, then you either pay what the supplier wants or you don't get their sensor, then you have no product. It would in reality simply raise prices for the end user.
L is worth itNormally I would agree, but from what I've seen of this lenses performance, it isn't worth the extra $2k for AF and a red stripe. For me, that makes the difference between having uwa and not.
Items sold by Amazon.com LLC, or its subsidiaries, and shipped to destinations in the following states are subject to tax:Yea, Tennessee is being added in 2014 for the same reason (added distribution centers). Love the fast shipping, but not the 9.25% sales tax (which is added to the shipping cost as well ).
*Added on 9/1/2013
Amazon is suing New York and have hired Ted Olson, he of winning Bush v Gore and the more recent California same sex marriage suits fame, so he is no lightweight. If he wins in Federal Court I guess I can have big ticket items shipped to my brother in NY.
Indiana, Tennessee, Nevada, and South Carolina are coming, though SC is a ways off at 1/1/2016. I believe Connecticut is soon as well.