Messages

1

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon are you listening...?? NIKON D600

« on: May 25, 2012, 12:23:16 PM »

The big problem here is too many Canon fans or employees trying to tell Canon is always right.

1. People have to have good skills to use cameras.
2. People cannot complain the product you would like buy because that's against your choice.
3. The lack of features are no problem because that's the company I like.
4. Too many lenses to switch to another company.  Here we are talking about CAMERAS, not lenses.
5. Many resources from other websites are wrong because they don't know Canon.
6. Anything against Canon is wrong.

A very interesting forum.

Kinda like

1. The Captain is always right.
2. If the Captain is wrong, refer to rule number 1.

Andy

2

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon are you listening...?? NIKON D600

« on: May 24, 2012, 05:29:48 PM »

This is a rumor...you might not see a Nikon like that either.

There were rumors of the 36MP D800 back in September and October (maybe even earlier), and everybody called BS.

And as far as I can tell, rumors about Canon, Nikon, Leica or any other camera maker have pretty much been right, or not too far off.

Andy

3

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat

« on: May 15, 2012, 10:51:26 AM »

Nice!

I love film as well, and would agree that it is hard to replicate the look of film effectively, and probably wont be able to for some time. I use a few rolls of film in my Rolleiflex every know and then and often like they way they look over my digital stuff, it just looks so much cooler, and has more character.

Andy

4

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'm confused about Nikon...

« on: May 12, 2012, 01:17:58 AM »

Not to be an stickler but, it is really not that confusing.

Andy

5

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'm confused about Nikon...

« on: May 10, 2012, 04:07:32 PM »

Nikon's new (est) camera is the D3200...

Nikon does not have any more (new) two digit cameras, so it goes 1 series, 3 series, and 4 series.

Does it really matter what cameras are called?

Andy

6

EOS Bodies / Re: According to Ken Rockwell, you guys are NOT PHOTOGRAPHERS!

« on: April 16, 2012, 10:23:42 PM »

As much as some people don't like Ken Rockwell, it is pointless to ramble on about how much you don't like him. If you don't like him then don't read or even look at his stuff, simple as that. Kind of like the radio or tv, if you don't like it change the channel. As much as people don't like Mr. Rockwell that is all they talk about, Rockwell says this or that, Rockwell does this or that. Like Jared Polin (the guy with the dumb-ass fro) who made an entire video series on how much he thought Ken was an idiot, and says something about him in a lot of his videos, which is kind of odd if he does not like him so much.

Now I am not defending Mr. Rockwell, some of the things he says I don't agree with but, I don't post threads online about how much or little I don't like him, and certainly don't send him emails telling him to do thing this way or that way. If he wants to do things his way let him be. I think this Ken Rockwell nonsense has run its course.

Andy

P.S. @prestonpalmer, this is Andy, cousin of Andy Filmore.

7

EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone shooting film?

« on: April 05, 2012, 11:12:50 PM »

Hello all, this is a very appropriate topic for myself. I am currently in a black and white class at school so I get to shoot, develop and print in the darkroom, and it has turned out to be the best thing I have ever learned, so far. I actual have more film cameras than digital. Nikon F's FM, Pentax, Argus, Fujica, Canon rebel SII, Brownie box camera and a few others.

My two main film cameras (like my user name might suggest) are two Rolleiflex TLR's, one being a 2.8E3 (80mm) and the other the 'Tele'-Rollei (135mm), that I use almost daily. They were my great uncle's cameras when he was a production photographer in Hollywood back in the day (50s-80s), and he used them to shoot on some very famous movies.


sanyasi wrote:

It's not just old people. My Hasselblad (I've owned it for 12 days) is a real magnet.  People just stop dead in their tracks.

I get a lot of looks with my Rolleiflex cameras too, I even had someone ask if it was a 3D camera because it has two lenses lol.

Andy

8

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs. D800... what comparisons do you want to see?

« on: April 02, 2012, 02:11:40 PM »

The mystery part for the D800 is a cord holder of some sort for the HDMI when attached to the camera, I think the D4's came with one too but don't quote me on that.

Andy

9

EOS Bodies / Re: Huge gap in Canon pro-sumer products

« on: March 30, 2012, 02:50:38 PM »

One would think there would have to be a Canon 7D replacement, if there is none, then there will be mighty big gap between a $1000 T4i* and a $3500 5DM3. Canon seems smarter than that to me.

The same thing is happening at Nikon, the D300s is due for a replacement, if there is none then there is a big gap between D7000 at $1200 and the D800 at $3000. There are rumors that the D400 is full frame or is going to have 24MP, who knows, no real info as of yet.

Both companies need to have a flag ship crop sensor body this time around, maybe next time they will be lesser full frame bodies.

Andy

10

EOS Bodies / Re: CANON 1Dx - New presentation & video -

« on: March 27, 2012, 02:27:11 PM »

So now that it is clear that f/8 auto focus is not possible, what have they been doing during these delays for the 1Dx?

Andy

11

EOS Bodies / Re: What is the Real Cost of a 5D MK III versus a D800

« on: March 27, 2012, 02:26:51 PM »

@prestonpalmer

How is it going, I just came back to this thread and realized it was you lol. This is Andy from MN, the cousin to Elizabeth and Andy Filmore.


agierke wrote:

i can definitely get behind the adjusted price comparison and your conclusion that the systems are comparable in costs.

i would like to add that if you are one that would be/will be investing 10-20k in a camera system then a couple hundred dollars here and there should be of no significance at all. at that level of investment the only things that matter are quality, performance, and reliability.

Glad that we agree! It was my point to say that it really does not matter, a few hundred here or there both are good and both having so similar products that it is sometimes easy to get lost the Nikon vs Canon rants.

Andy

12

EOS Bodies / Re: What is the Real Cost of a 5D MK III versus a D800. Math Corrected!

« on: March 25, 2012, 12:49:38 PM »

agierke wrote:

the major flaw i saw in the price comparison is between the 24-70mm lenses.

The Nikon does not have IS and has not been upgraded in years. A fairer price comparison would be to the previous canon model which would be the following:

24-70mm F2.8, Canon 1400.00, Nikon 1900.00

so that shaves 1000.00 off your canon totals.

I just noticed that I placed "IS II" instead of just "II" in front of the new Canon 24-70 2.8 (the new Canon 24-70 does not have IS), I was thinking IS II for the Canon 70-200 2.8 in the first comparison, sorry. Moreover, I was referring to the best and latest lens in each category, so yes the prices are more even with the Canon 24-70 2.8 I instead of the II.


JR wrote:

I rarely see the Nikon lens on rebates but there are often plenty of deal on Canon lenses from large dealer.  For example my 24L did not cost me $1800, it cost me ~1480 brand new.  The 35L cisted ~1200 in december...I paid $1900 for my 70-200, etc...

Again I was referring to the new prices from the Manufacturer website but, fair enough as you are probably right about the rebates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a price adjustment with the Canon 24-70 version 1 instead of version 2.

Here is a very comparable set up based solely on cameras and lenses, nothing else, and in US dollars taken from the respective manufacturer's website.

24 1.4, Canon $1800, Nikon $2200

35 1.4, Canon $1500, Nikon $1800

50 1.4, Canon  $400 (1.2 $1600), Nikon $450

85 1.2/1.4, Canon 1.2 $2200, Nikon 1.4 $1700.

24-70 2.8, Canon V1 $1400, Nikon $1900

70-200 2.8, Canon IS II $2500, Nikon VRII $2400

Total for Canon lenses is $9,800: Total with 5DM3 body is $13,300
                                                                                                   
Total for Nikon lenses is $10,450: Total with D800 body is $13,450

Difference of $650 Canon being cheaper ($150 with body, Nikon being cheaper)

And these are supposed to be the best lens in each category, I have not mentioned the Canon 50 1.2, but if included price point would be $11,000 Canon lenses only ($14,500 with 5DM3 body), a difference of $550 ($1050 with bodies included, Nikon being cheaper)

So I guess what I was trying to get at was there really is not a big difference between systems, each has more and less expensive items than the other. I replied mostly because people tend to think Nikon is sooooo much more expensive than Canon when it really is not, if at all.

Andy

13

EOS Bodies / Re: What is the Real Cost of a 5D MK III versus a D800

« on: March 24, 2012, 10:44:00 PM »

Hello everyone, just signed up seeing what is going on here at Canon Rumors, looking forward to posting more. I should preface this by saying I have Nikon and Canon cameras, although more Nikon than Canon, both systems are good but below are purely numbers and not my Nikon bais.

[/quote]

Totally agree!  Not to mention to get the same lens in Nikon I got in Canon would cost me an arm and a leg.  Apart from the new Canon lenses being announced, a lot of the Nikon lens are inferior to Canon and more expensive on top of that!

My bet is that with the body + lens combo, all these test spec fall apart and both system will be good.  Anyway I made my move...LOVING CANON.  The new mkIII feels great - trying it out this afternoon at a birthday
[/quote]

Here is a very comparable set up based solely on cameras and lenses, nothing else, and in US dollars taken from the respective manufacturer's website.

24 1.4, Canon $1800, Nikon $2200

35 1.4, Canon $1500, Nikon $1800

50 1.4, Canon  $400 (1.2 $1600), Nikon $450

85 1.2/1.4, Canon 1.2 $2200, Nikon 1.4 $1700.

24-70 2.8, Canon IS II $2400, Nikon $1900

70-200 2.8, Canon $2500, Nikon $2400

Total for Canon lenses is $10,800: Total with 5DM3 body is $14,300
                                                                                                   
Total for Nikon lenses is $10,450: Total with D800 body is $13,450

Difference of $350 ($850 with body)

And these are supposed to be the best lens in each category, I have not mentioned the Canon 50 1.2, but if included price point would be $12,000 lenses only ($15,500 with 5DM3 body), a difference of $1550 ($2050 with body included)

Not sure where you are getting the arm and a leg mark from, so far.

And a set up with body and four prime lenses 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2/1.4, and 85 1.2/1.4.

D800 $3000

24: $2200

35: $1700

50: $450

85 1.4: $1700

Lenses only $6050

Total with body $9050

-------------------------------------------

Canon 5DM3 $3500

24: $1800

35: $1500

50: $400 (1.2 $1600)

85 1.2: $2200

Lenses only $5900 (including Canon 50 1.2 rises price to $7100)

Total with body $9400 (including Canon 50 1.2 rises price to $10,600)

Difference of $350 ($1550 with 50 1.2 included)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make the bodies the same at $3000: Nikon total is $9050, Canon total is $8900 ( $10,100 with 50 1.2 included)

Difference of $150 (Canon cheaper this time) And difference including Canon 50 1.2 is $1050, Nikon cheaper.

Now with the bodies the same price the Canon kit is actually a little cheaper than Nikon but, not if you include the Canon 50 1.2 which again makes the Canon kit more expensive.

If I missed anything let me know.

Andy