Messages

511

EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like 8 or maybe even 10 new Canon cameras in 2012!

« on: May 16, 2012, 04:19:51 PM »

OTOH, it could also use the existing mount system and they can intro some trendy new pancake primes and short zooms to go with it. APS-C size sensor makes most sense to start but I guess we'll see.

Well, they did have rumors about a 40mm pancake lens being developed, and there were also rumors of some other lenses for mirrorless.

It'd be a shame if they aren't cross-compatible with EF, cause it'd be a nice way to get some cheap, small lenses that Canon doesn't seem to really make anymore.

Wouldn't it technically be three cameras? The T4I..the 650D...and then some mirrorless camera?

T4i and 650D are the same thing (much like the T3i/600D, T2i/550D, etc). One is named for the US market, the other for foreign markets. Apparently too many numbers confuse us Americans.

512

Lenses / Re: 4K to spend and I don't know what to do with it!!!

« on: May 15, 2012, 05:13:42 PM »

Also I didn't know the 16-35 was considered a specialty lens.  I heard alot of great reviews about getting good shots in tight spots when your inside and can't get the distance needed to frame properly.  What do you guys thinK?

It's specialty depending on your style. On a crop body it'd actually be a pretty decent general zoom...but that's only because of the crop factor cutting out the main area of distortion on the edges.

On full frame, the distortion at the wide end means you have to be very careful about where you place your subjects. Anything in the edges and you get some really fat looking people...not so good. And so unless you plan to use the 16-24 range a lot, it makes more sense to go another way.

Really depends a lot on your style. If you're used to zooms, a complete change to prime will take some adjustment that might be tough during wedding season

513

Lenses / Re: 4K to spend and I don't know what to do with it!!!

« on: May 15, 2012, 03:21:28 PM »

Also, in terms of places to shop for equipment, I've had good luck on FredMiranda.

514

Lenses / Re: 4K to spend and I don't know what to do with it!!!

« on: May 15, 2012, 03:01:36 PM »

What I would do is consider selling the 60D with your lenses and talking to a local store about bundling a 5D mark II with a 24-70 and pick up a used 550D (same sensor as the 60D) for a back-up. A 5D body with a used lens is something to consider to save.

I'm not sure the turnaround on that conversion is really worth the, what, $200 you'll get from it. The 550D body feels like crap in your hand; which is a big deal if you'll be holding it for several hours at a time. Then we can talk about battery life (nearly 3x as long with the 60D and the compatibility of 60D batteries with the 5D and 7D), how easy the controls are to work (much easier on a 60D, though not as good as the 5D/7D); not to mention AF and burst rate. There are other smaller things; but the ones listed above are reason enough not to downgrade.

I'd sell the 18-135 ($200), unless you see yourself using it for travel, etc. Then get yourself a 5DmarkII to complement your 60D ($1500 through Canon Loyalty Program)...then I'd consider where you are shooting those 3 weddings. If they are outdoor weddings, I'd get the 70-200 f/4 IS and mount on the 60D($1000ish used), and a 24-70 f/2.8 ($1000). If they are indoor weddings, then you want to go more primes for low-light handling. Either way, you should have leftover money for another flash, even if it's another 430ex.

Lots of ways you could go...but, Id say going the full-frame low-light handling route would be the most ideal to complement the 60D. And going 5DII over 5DIII allows you a lot more room for new glass. Then maybe next wedding season you'll upgrade the 60D to something else

515

EOS Bodies / Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]

« on: May 14, 2012, 04:02:18 PM »

So essentially it will be the 5d2?  I'm not sure why they don't just drop the price of the 5d2.

They did, they dropped the MSRP from $2499 to $2199...it just happened to coincide with the time prices normally rise. That said, there have been a variety of deals where its been <$2k.

And they dropped it fairly significantly in their refurb store...with Canon Loyalty, a refurb 5D comes out to $1500ish. Can't really get any cheaper: http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/subCategory_10051_10051_-1_29252#

516

EOS Bodies / Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

« on: May 14, 2012, 01:26:00 PM »

In the current model stills photographers are actually subsidizing commercial video use and get cameras that are not optimized for still photography but for video use.

Consider all the upgrades that differentiate the 5dII from the 5dIII and tell me which were critical to videographers...and which were critical to a stills shooter. You'd really have to be insane to say its not optimized for stills, since the only video specific upgrade is the choice of video codecs.

6fps, 61pt AF, a processor dedicated to AF, hell, even the MP aren't what a videographer would demand normally (more or less would be more ideal). It has no XLR inputs, it has no ND filters, no focus peaking, no zebras, I could go on and on. If the 5DIII was an 8MP camera that did 4k video (like Sony's FS-700), you might have a point.

If you want Canon to charge double for a video specific camera...they did. Look at all the cine cameras Canon just put out. The 1D-C literally costs double the 1D-X

517

EOS Bodies / Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

« on: May 14, 2012, 01:09:09 PM »

For high-end bodies (5 and up) it's possible that high-quality video increases price through consumer demand.  If so, there's nothing to be done but vote with your wallet.

For consumer-level bodies (7D, XXd and below) video is a requirement of this market segment, but the quality is not high enough to pull in serious video enthusiasts, so body price is not affected.

I'd say you nailed it...though, I think the 7D might fall into category 1 simply because it hits a market that wasn't really covered in any way (action sports). To get a weather-proofed body that is very portable with great IQ; it basically didn't exist. Now they have 7D's (and GoPro's), and its proliferated that market a good deal.

But that is less because of the IQ, it's more for the build quality in such an affordable camera.

518

EOS Bodies / Re: A cheaper FF body - anytime soon?

« on: May 14, 2012, 01:03:44 PM »

Once the D600 arrives, Nikon will have a current, modern, camera with all of the current bells and whistles. The 5D2 will be missing those and when you draw up the list of features to compare (including 24 vs 21 MP), you'll never fall on the side of the 5D2.

24MP sure does sound awfully similar to what every Sony camera is rolling with right now...I wouldnt be so certain you are getting the newest sensor tech they have.

I'll also be curious to see what that does to D800 sales when it comes out. For wedding shooters, I'm not sure they'd have a reason to stick D800 over D600. Likewise for people upgrading from their D3100/D5100/etc...a D600 will seem great in comparison. It'd be funny to see them cannibalize the market for their media darling so quickly

519

EOS Bodies / Re: A cheaper FF body - anytime soon?

« on: May 14, 2012, 12:56:30 PM »

The 5d2 price isn't dropping

Except for, you know, the fact that it did drop in Canon's store ($1759 refurb), and that through Canon Loyalty, you can get a 5DII for $1400ish+ tax. I've seen the used market drop off lately...on sites like Fred Miranda, it's rare to see even a like new body go for more than $1800. Multiple times the 5dII and 24-104 has gone for $2400ish on Ebay Daily Deals.

I'm also very interested to see what Canon does after the d800 public relations disaster

I don't get this mentality...that its a huge PR disaster. Getting crushed in specs in the Rebel level...sure. At the $3000 price mark, most of the buyers have enough sense to check more than a few specs. The only way it'd be a PR disaster for Canon is if the 5dIII was terrible...significantly worse than the 5DII while charging a premium and all the major pro shooters abandoned them for Nikon. THAT'S a disaster. But, since that hasn't happened (and won't), the only way its a slight disaster for Canon is if they get crushed in sales. And since we won't even be able to guess at that side for another 6+ months, let's hold off on that silly hype.

As for the entry level full-frame, I'd imagine its a ways off. Maybe Photokina, but probably more likely it's a next spring kind of thing. The 5DII still sells well, they've got manufacturing figured out for it...there's no rush. The 5DII is basically already the entry level full-frame offering, if $1500-1800 isn't cheap enough, then no camera will satisfy that market

520

EOS Bodies / Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?

« on: May 14, 2012, 12:01:58 PM »

Why not ask a more logical question such as:

"Would you buy a 28mp with 8fps for $2500 if it had no video?"

But the question should be grounded in reality. Canon couldn't sell that camera at $2500 if they have to R&D a new sensor, new focus system, etc; and they knew the market was smaller than the original market that put the 5dIII at $3500. I mean, sure, I'd GLADLY take my dream camera at half the reasonable market price, but it has no practical application as a poll, everyone would answer yes to getting their dreams.

The question is basically, how much less would the camera have to cost for video not being included to be worth it. I think that's a fair question...and one that gets at how much people actually value video features

521

EOS Bodies / Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

« on: May 14, 2012, 11:57:02 AM »

This is why Nikon will sell a boatload of their new DSLRs and is gaining market share against Canon in 2012.

Got a link for that? As I imagine it'd be pretty impossible for the D800 to have gained Nikon market-share when its barely even available in stores

522

EOS Bodies / Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

« on: May 14, 2012, 11:52:01 AM »

Really?  How do you come to that conclusion?  On a chip that is neither natively 5:4, 4:3 or 16:9 aspect into the bargain?

I'll let another user answer that for you

a slight increase to 22mp is intended for EOS-Movie, horizontal pixels 5760 is exactly 3 times of 1920, this indicates that 5D Mark III will do a full-sensor readout and 3x3 pixel binning to produce clean, sharp and almost-no-moire HD video.

Now, that's hypothetical for the reasoning, though it makes sense to make a sensor that can be used among many cameras (including the C cameras) that works well with video capture. But, they might also have found 22mp to be compromise between low-light and resolution that they liked best.

That moire is basically non-existent in video would lead me to believe that the sensor size isn't accidentally a solution for that, but, I wouldn't say its the only reason. Canon settled on 21mp for the 5dII with video as an after-thought; it might just be the magic number for them

Are there any components where compromises have to be made which will detrimentally impact the design for a still camera? - for example 22mp is a video size, perhaps it might have been as cheap and easy to make a 28mp sensor which was optimised for still image

It's an interesting question. I'd have to imagine that there was a slight compromise there...though, a true video person would be even happier with 4x4 binning, which would mean a sensor in the 35mp range. Canon have made sensors MUCH larger than that, so, they are clearly capable of such a thing. I imagine they tested it and decided that for the target market (wedding, event, indie movie set), low-light handling was more important than that added resolution, and their sensors only allowed them to go so far.

So, sure, it could have been 28mp, but, do you really need that extra resolution if it cost camera a stop of light, or didn't solve issues from the older 5dII (moire, etc)

523

EOS Bodies / Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?

« on: May 13, 2012, 08:55:23 PM »

Why can't they have a nice MKII upgrade for photos only at about $2500 or lower?

Reason: greed + ways of charging more for "features" some don't need...

Because that hypothetical camera would have to sell as many units as the MkIII with video AND cost 30% less to produce (in R&D, manufacturing, etc) for Canon to offer it at $2500. Since selling fewer units would mean R&D/manufacturing costs aren't recouped the same...and $2500 is a 30% off discount from $3500.

And you'd have to have the market research that proves that over 50% of DLSR users don't like video and would prefer a camera without it. Otherwise, charging a premium for video might be making a LOT of customers mad in the same way not offering a cheaper/non-video DSLR makes you mad.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess they've done that research...and those calculations...and know they'd be hurting their sales by going that route. I'd say the fact the only non-video DSLR you can find is a luxury brand like Leica means other companies agree.

524

EOS Bodies / Re: How many cameras will they sell without it?

« on: May 13, 2012, 12:46:24 PM »

Today, Canon would not sell a DSLR without video in sufficient volume to recoup R&D costs.

Seriouly. Can you imagine if the 5DIII didn't have video (cause they were saving it for the Cine cameras)? People are already flipping out about DR, banding in shadows, a light leak "issue". Now take video away from the camera they've been waiting 3 years for and this forum would have imploded.

525

EOS Bodies / Re: Is video raising cost of bodies? Is it wasted for many shooters?

« on: May 12, 2012, 09:49:53 PM »

Apple might think it can tell me how I'm going to edit, but it can't tell my clients.

Yeah...they're going to lose the higher end pro market. But, that seems to be the way Apple was going; especially with rumors the Mac Pro may not continue on