Messages

31

Lenses / Re: Canon Makes the EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Official

« on: November 06, 2012, 09:41:08 AM »

When I was growing up - Nikon was the expensive one - AND WE LIKED IT!

$850 for a 35 f/2? Really?

32

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 05, 2012, 12:17:02 PM »

just call me carnac 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9767.0;topicseen

The 35 might be nice if it had L build [weather sealed] and dropped the IS

33

Lenses / Re: Opinion: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 05, 2012, 10:31:32 AM »

The 24-105 is likely on its way out, which is too bad, it's maybe the most perfect travel/general use lens on the market.

I wouldn't worry about it, so many were made, they'll be available on the used market for yeaarrrs.

34

Lenses / Re: Opinion: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 05, 2012, 10:10:06 AM »

The 24-105 is good, but not stellar, maybe they've improved the optics? This is also significantly smaller/lighter than the 24-70 ii, and a little than the 24-105 - maybe they were looking for something to match the 6D? Cheaper? If true - all good.

Also, maybe Canon was listening to me? Ha Ha 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9767.0;topicseen

Test, next I want a FF 30MP camera in a 7D sized body, 12fps, 30AF points, accepts EF-S lenses for $1500 by summer 2013 - Canon?

35

Canon General / Re: Life Pixel customer service

« on: November 03, 2012, 01:56:20 PM »

Glad you like your camera, and I had heard good things about them, but my experience was miserable. What good is it to make a decent product if you don't stand by your word?

36

Canon General / Life Pixel customer service

« on: November 02, 2012, 11:07:12 AM »

Anyone else have such a problem?

I was looking for a UV only conversion so I asked which model from their pull down list was best, they claimed any of those on that list [since changed] would work fine, I bought one second hand [non-refundable] for them to convert. OOPS - they really can't convert that model! They're sorry, but I'm stuck with S&H and trying to resell an obsolete camera [not alot of money, but..]

there answer is;
"I think that getting your camera converted through maxmax would be the way to go, especially as it is much less expensive."

I did get a refund and my camera is supposedly on its way back. 

37

Canon General / Re: Does Minimum Advertised Price apply to auctions?

« on: October 23, 2012, 03:28:13 PM »

I worked in one of those mom & pop camera shops during college, and assuming the situation hasn't changed - the biggest problem they had was the manufacturers quantity pricing structure. The difference in price between buying 2 of some camera and 100 was SIGNIFICANT. The big boys could make a profit selling at the small guys buy price.  The principal seems sound enough - you get a break if you buy alot of something, but this puts the small guy at a disadvantage from the start. If Canon, Nikon, etc cared about the small shops they'd sell equipment to all retailers for the same price regardless of qty - but I suspect they really don't.

On a couple of occassions, I remember the owner buying cameras on sale from a big outfit because the price was cheaper than what he could get as a dealer from the manufacturer.

It's a difficult situation - half the population will be out of work if everyone only buys from efficient warehouse retailers. Should we care?

38

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Future of APS-C

« on: October 09, 2012, 01:11:29 PM »

One thing that has been mentioned is that MILC (mirrorless interchangable lens camera), will replace APS-C DSLR. This will be tha case, as soon as the EV will be good enough. There has been big improvements, but there is still a long way to go (80% of the job is done in 20% of the time, the remaining 20% of the job need 80% of the time). Nothing against MILC, they are nice, and there will be some prosumer MILC cameras in the future. But the time is just not read yet.

The Sony SLT series are essentially MILC [EVF, no OVF] - It will be real interesting to see how well their prosumer FF A99 does.  The sony NEX and micro 4/3 folks seems to like the EVFs well enough. Who knows what the future holds, but the next logical step [to me anyway] is to get rid of the mirror [wheteher for AF or OVF], shorten the back focus and make smaller FF capable lenses. How about an RX1 with EVF and interchangeable lenses?  Bottom line - its here and will only get better.

39

Lenses / Re: No compact 'standard' L zoom?

« on: September 27, 2012, 03:06:59 PM »

Are we talking about price or size here? 

I can think of 4 EF-S lenses are are 'almost, but not quite L' . . . but they're priced that way too. 

For pricing, as a lot of people here mention, it's partially WHEN something was built. 

If you're talking price, you get what you pay for . . . I mean when you pay to have a zoom (vs a prime) then at the same price, the primes tend to be better built.

Notice how so many people just fell in love with the 40?

Size/weight and price [not so much].  My assumption is that many folks have migrated to the Sony NEX or MFT - many as second systems - primarily because of size/weight.  Right? I'm also assuming that its at least a factor for standard DSLR users when deciding which camera to take out for the day.  I'll assume thats why Canon made the 6D the way they did.  My gut says that a smaller, lighter, probably slower - and presumably somewhat cheaper L zoom would sell well. I should think Canon would like that as well - there has to be more profit in these.  I could be wrong.

To your other point - I really don't understand the 40 at all.

40

Lenses / Re: No compact 'standard' L zoom?

« on: September 27, 2012, 01:26:13 PM »

Canon will probably price them that way, but I absolutely, positively disagree that they have to be. 

41

Lenses / Re: No compact 'standard' L zoom?

« on: September 27, 2012, 12:48:57 PM »

Interesting discussion, but ... I reject out of hand the notion that L glass [better build, weather sealed] have to necessarily be twice as much (especially since many have plastic bodies now) - e.g. 17-40, 70-200 f/4 non IS are both quite reasonable - cheaper than many EF-S lenses.  It certainly wouldn't be a 'waste' to have a 35mm f/2 L or 28 f/2 L I don't think many folks really care about IS on such a lens, but would like weather sealing. I still contend that there is a market for some smaller, lighter L glass.  Maybe I'm wrong and Canon may not make these, but they did make the 40mm pancake - why? Was anyone clamoring for this? Good IQ, but I've seen it on a 1D - and it looks silly.

42

Lenses / No compact 'standard' L zoom?

« on: September 26, 2012, 11:02:28 AM »

With the announcement by Canon of the 6D, it appears that they've at least acknowledged (are hoping) that there is a (big?) market for a FF camera, but in a smaller, lighter package. So, wheres the lens to go with it? There are currrently only 3 [out of 10] FF standard zoom lenses. Of the two L offerings, the 24-70 is by all accounts very good, but quite pricey and still not light [the brickette], the 24-105 is also pretty good, but still looks large on the 6D, especially as a walk around zoom.  Canon makes FIVE versions of the 70-200!!!  Why not something like a lighter, more moderately priced 24-70L /4?

and how about 35/2L and 24/2 or 2.8L 

43

Lenses / Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?

« on: September 18, 2012, 03:31:38 PM »

If anything, I wish they'd make at least a couple EFS L build lenses; 10-22, 15-85, 60macro to go with the smaller form factor 7DII. They have the tele's covered.

44

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?

« on: September 14, 2012, 08:00:10 PM »

Looks like an "almost" ideal travel/nature/landscape camera - smallish, weathersealed, GPS - if $2K for the body, I'll certainly consider one if the IQ is good.

45

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony A99 Rumored Specs "Leak"

« on: August 28, 2012, 11:35:55 AM »

This will be very interesting to see - the first essentially mirrorless [EVF, not OVF] FF prosumer camera. Bold move on Sony's part.  I hope they do it right, that the viewfinder is well reviewed. They just need to figure out the AF and get rid of the translucent mirror altogether. I can't help but wonder if that doesn't hurt IQ.