Messages

271

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

« on: May 25, 2012, 04:13:35 AM »

People are getting disappointed when D800 and 5D3 released.  5D3 is overpriced and looks D800 is better than 5D3 from many reviews.  If Canon is just want to make money from its existing customers, Canon will see many of its customer switch to Nikon.  I am one of the Canon users considering to switch to Nikon 
...
Here is my true reason.  I want to switch Nikon is not because Nikon makes better cameras.  I want to switch to Nikon because Canon disappoints me.  I feel Canon want to take advantage from its existing customers (at least me)  I know many PROs have too many Canon lenses, so that will be very difficult to switch Nikon.  However, Canon will see Nikon gets many of its non-PRO users. 
...

+1 to that!

I have been a Canon non-pro user ever since my first DSLR [350D/Rebel XT] to my current 7D and this is exactly, where  I stand now.

Nikon has scored big time with the D800. The 5D3 is not bad, but essentially only what the 5D2 should have been from the start (adequate AF-system). Sensor-wise its a minimal improvement. And it gets blown out of the water by the D800 not only in terms of resolution but more importantly to me, in DR at the most used lower ISOs. There is no doubt whatsoever that the 5D 3 is way overpriced while it outta be less expensive than a D800. 

If Nikon now doubles that up with a D600 at around 1.5k and if its sensor also creams the 5D3 - which I fully expect - than Canon will indeed "be toast" in the all-important non-pro, photo-enthusiast segment of the market. That is us, the guys who buy by far the largest share of higher-end, high-margin lenses and speedlites, as well as future cameras. :-)

Especially "FF upgraders" coming from Canon APS-C with mainly EF-lenses, that they need to sell anyway, WILL be switching to Nikon in large numbers, as soon as a good, affordable D600 comes out.  And while Nikon glass was generally somewhat more expensive than comparable Canon glass up until about 4 years ago, it has turned the other way round by now after many rounds of massive Canon price hikes.

272

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

« on: May 16, 2012, 08:59:26 AM »

The video capability isn't just software, it is hardware and it is part of the camera in a way that makes it impossible for you to elect for it to not be there.

so is 4WD vs 2WD. ALmost any car available in 4WD can also be ordered in 2WD. Manual gear or automatic ... deep in the hardware and different user interface ... for almost every car you get the choice (at least in Europe).

If car manufacturers are able to provide so many and profoundly different customer-selected configurations on so many different models, camera makers [with typically only 5 models of DSLRs in production!] should also be able to and forced by their customers to do so. 

Even iPhones and iPads from the "grandmaster of inflexible companies" [Apple] are offered in 6 different configigurations each [WiFi/UMTS, 3x memory size].

To get ANY DSLR in a stills-only and video-enabled version would be the bare minimum. With a similar price differential as offered by Apple on an iPhone WiFi vs. one with WiFi and UMTS [around 20% ... although the cost difference to Apple is probaly less than 5 dollars per unit, R&D included!].

273

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

« on: May 15, 2012, 07:59:04 AM »

Seriously, do some reading on supply and demand curves if you don't understand why removing video will not lower price.

well I expect Canon will have to do some studying of supply and demand curves soon. Once the initial demand for the 5D3 is fulfilled, they will have to lower the price quickly below the D800. I believe it will already happen in the pre-christmas season this year (2012). 

274

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

« on: May 15, 2012, 07:00:51 AM »

Yes, I understand this, but that was AvTvM's premise, not mine.  I was following his premise to its logical conclusion to demonstrate that his line of argument didn't make any sense.

I agree with you, that Canon's product line-up does not make much sense.

Why are their dedicated video-cams so bloody expensive? I am talking about the Cxxx-line. These things must be way cheaper to build than a 5D3 ... no mirrorbox+contents, no prism, no Phase-AF system ... all fairly expensive components requiring a lot of very careful and precise adjustment during manufacturing.

Why is there no "entry"-level C100 with video capabilities at the level of a 5D 3 and costs @ around USD/Euro 2000?

The only product where I see some sense for convergence stills+video is the 1D X ...  fast tool for image jounalists, sports professionals. But then again, why on earth did Canon announce a 1D C ... instead of a C600 or whatever number that would be so much miore suitable to (hi end) video and could be manufactured for a lot less money? And why would somebody prefer a clumsy DSLR-body over a video-optimized camera to shoot hi-end video/cine stuff? Just does not make any sense to me. The only thing that makes sense to me is that video-purchasers get a choice between PL and EF lens mount on the heigher-end gear. If Canon wants to call all their imaging gear "EOS", that does not bother me, although I fail to see compelling reasons to do so.   

And why not offer 7D II and 5D 3 as "basic version" for stills capture only (but with liveview) at an attractively low price - similar to what that type of DSLRs cost, before video was grafted onto them? And charge those users who want these cams as "convenient convergence products" something extra for a version that includes video capability as a major extra feature? Make video users pay a reasonble amount more for the video feature, rather than charging everybody for it, whether you want it or not. For those, needing both - stills and video - that  would still be a lot cheaper than buying a dedicated video cam plus a stills DSLR.

Since Nikon is selling the D800, a better stills camera with similar video capability for less than what the 5D 3 costs, the following  price points would seem about right to me:
5D3 stills only -  USD/€ 2500
5D3 stills + video [the one we got) - USD/€ 2,900 ... matching D800 price
7D II stills only - ca. USD/€ 1700
7D II stills + video - ca. € 2000

275

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Custom Settings

« on: May 15, 2012, 06:38:48 AM »

For action (C3), wouldn't it be better to set Auto ISO?

yes, that would also be possible, but normally I like to have more control over exposure parameters and use Auto-ISO rarely, since its implementation is rather limited on the 7D. I may switch to Auto-ISO if the light is constantly changing and to such an amount, that it does require changing ISO. 

If in Mode "M" and Auto-ISO I could still use +/- exposure correction, I would probably set C3 to that setting. :-)

276

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Info? [CR2]

« on: May 15, 2012, 05:03:23 AM »

as current 7D user I will only upgrade to 7D II, if sensor performance is SIGNIFICANTLY improved. Especially low ISO [banding] and DR across the range. I do not need or want more MP, 18 is plenty fine. APS-C is also perfectly fine with me [APS-H will definitely not happen!] and I do not need or want more fps [even 5-6 fps are sufficient for my use]. Video crap? Could not care less. :-)   

In terms of features, I would want a fully working Auto-ISO model [better than 5D 3, at least as good as Nikon D800/D4], fully articulated LCD plus a multifunctional radio-module in the hump: radio-masterflash-controller (RT-system) plus GPS plus WiFi. In that case I would happily forego the pop-up flash. That would also allow for even better weather-sealing. :-)   

And a price tag of less than USD/Euro 2000 for the package. 

If I had really free choice, I would just love to get these specs in a compact mirrorless Canon - without any compromises in image quality, performance and useability. Provided the EVF is really top-notch.  For such a mirrorless 7D II with EF-/EF-S adapter INCLUDED in the package (!) I would be willing to pay up to USD/Euro 3000. :-)

277

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Info? [CR2]

« on: May 15, 2012, 04:50:08 AM »

The Big question is will the 7DII announcement and resulting camera cause the same level of dummy spitting, carry on and trolling that happened after the 5Dmk3 anouncement? 

YES ...
... IF Canon wants to charge USD/€ 2.500 or more for a 7D II
... AND IF  Nikon brings out an APS-C D400 at the same
... AND IF such a D400 also bests the Canon by quite some margin and costs USD/€ 600 less
... THEN  there will be many more critical threads and posts than with the overprized 5D3 vs. D800 situation.

rightfully so! 

278

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Custom Settings

« on: May 14, 2012, 07:22:47 PM »

I am a 7D user. AF on rear AF-button, AI-Servo-Mode, single AF-point, matrix metering, EC +2/3 EV, slow series drive speed are among my default settings in all modes.

the 3 presets are used as (starting point) for the following "special modes":

* C1 - "snapshot mode" ... that I switch to, when a person not familiar with my camera wants to take a shot ... = P-mode, Auto-ISO, low-series speed, one-shot AF, automatic AF point selection, jpg, AF on shutter button, custom functions mostly set to default

* C2 - "tripod mode" - Av f/4, single shot, one-shot AF, single AF point active, ISO100, LiveView active, mirror-lockup, self-timer/IR remote control with 2s delay, plus some more settings - eg. noise reduction on long-time exposures

* C3 - "action mode" - Tv 1/1000s, fast series, AI-Servo-mode, AF-point extension, ISO 400, and a few more settings e.g. flash sync on second curtain, etc.

in C2 and C3 I adjust parameters if/as required in situation, but do not overwrite register with changed values. That way I know exactly, what I get, when I turn the mode wheel to C1, C2, C3.

Advantages of AF on rear button - please use search, this has been discussed many times over, no point for me to repeat. 

279

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

« on: May 14, 2012, 07:05:14 PM »

I believe the question should be modified to be: 

would you buy a optimised still camera without video

If the answer is a resounding yes - then perhaps a second question might be asked

How much would you be prepared to pay

I did not want to ask for specific price points for specific levels of cameras/feature sets. 

What I am interested in is to get an idea, how much DSLR-purhcasers appreciate video capability. At current it seems, they would be prepared to pay  quite a bit more for a video enabled camera than for a stills-only camera. But lets see, how the poll continues. It will be open for 7 days.

I do believe Canon should be able to sell a video-only cam with a large sensor and 5d3 video capabilities for USD/€ 2000. After all, they could leavy off the entire mirror box, mirror+submirror assembly, entire phase-AF system, large prism, mechanical shutter unit, optical viewfinder ... all of this is not neede for video. Actually it is  rather in the way of an ergonomical video cam.  All of these items are fairly expensive in terms of production cost ... both parts and labor - with a lot of small-tolerance fitting and adjustments. A 5D3 without these items might really be possible for 2k [given Nikon's D800 price point for the hybrid stills/video D800]. 

Canon, Nikon and even more so Sony (with the SLT design that defintiely compromises stills capture in a big way!) are all bundling video plus stills in DSLR-Cameras and are not offering purchasers a choice of
a) optimized for stills only  [@ somewhat lower price, since savings are not so huge]
b) optimized for video only [@ substantailly lower price]
c) compromised - video and stills [@ current price or even more, since many purchasers seem willing to pay]
but only offer c)
... trying to push "convergence".
To me, that would really mak sense, if those cameras were not digital but analog and require film, that would also be sold by the camera manufacturer. Then, pushing the user bnase towards a more film-hungry video would sound like a great marketing strategy. But for all I know Canon and Nikon are not producing digital media. Sony is, but only at a small(er) scale, after its proprietary memory stick desaster utterly failed. 

280

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

« on: May 14, 2012, 02:32:50 PM »

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

actually I like that find that pricing differential perfectly right. :-)

And I want Canon to offer the same choice between a stills-oriented model (price = 100%) and a video-optimized model (@ 200% price) also at the 5D, 7D and rebel level.

I don't see any reason, why Canon does not make reasonably cheap large-sensored "real video-cams" without mirror, without mirrorbox, without OVF, with video-optimized features galore ... why oh why does this have to be implemented in stills-optimized DSLRs of all things?

If Canon would at last bring an FF mirrorless to market ... and i fthat thing also had video in it - then I would say, alright, in a mirrorless camera, video really is a "most natural thing", but certainly not in DSLRs. So while we stills shooters only get DSLRs, give us at least an option for "lowest price possible" stills-only DSLRs and charge thos, that need and want video EXTRA for an EXTRA feature. 

281

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

« on: May 14, 2012, 01:16:17 PM »

Granted, there are exceptions, but it's probably not enough to affect the price.

Ibelieve demand for video-use 7D / 5D2s though a minority of purchasers has still been high enough to impact  the price.

We would know for sure, had Canon sold these cams in "still photography version" and a "Video-enabled" version for twice the price. These DSLRs would have still been dirt cheap for professional video use. In that model, Canon would have made those users pay, who are actually using the video crap, rather than the majority of purchasers who hardly ever use their DSLRs for video.

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. 

282

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

« on: May 14, 2012, 12:09:57 PM »

of course we could go even further and ask for "fully customer-configurable cameras" - at least to such a degree we have become used to "customize" cars and PCs ... at the minimum having a choice between a number of different configurations/versions - eg. with/without Video, sensor resolution, Af-system, etc. 

Currently foto gear makers product modularity really equals Henry Ford's model-T policy 100 years ago ...  "you can have it any color, as long as its black". :-)

Today you can order a small car eg. a BMW Mini with a very powerful engine and most of the very same hi-end features available in large, hi-end, "flagship model" cars  ...  if you want and are willing to pay for them. But we will not  be forced to buy a 7-series BMW just becaus we would like to have a 200hp engine, Xenon headlights and decent A/C in a car.

It's about time photo gear makers (and the consumer electronics guys in general!) get off their high horse an start offering modular cameras with features to be selected by purchasers!

283

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

« on: May 14, 2012, 11:55:33 AM »

This is ridiculous. Video doesn't increases the cost of cameras, it reduces it.

wrong.

As long as a KB-sensored "dedicated videocam" with video-performance similar to a 5D3 costs in excess of 10k, Canon figures, they can charge a much higher price than they could for a video-less stills camera. Obviously Video-users will happily pay anywhere up to 9999 - thus driving up the price of the cam for all stills-only users who are forced to cross-subsidize the video crowd, as Canon does not offer a video-less version of the camera (say a a reasonable 2500) but prefers to demand a whopping 3.500 for a video-enabled camera that only a minority of purchasers will ever use to regularly capture video.   

The only one "spoiling the game" for Canon is Nikon with its D800, which offers the whole video shebang plus better stills performance for 600 less. This is why Nikon will sell a boatload of their new DSLRs and is gaining market share against Canon in 2012.

284

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

« on: May 14, 2012, 10:32:24 AM »

To get a rough idea, whether & what market potential video-disabled Canon EOS DSLR's might have.

Thanks @all taking part in this poll!

285

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

« on: May 14, 2012, 06:38:04 AM »

yes - video raises the price of DSLRs.
Because up to now, Video-DSLRs are still the cheapest available large-sensor camcorders, video shooters are happy to pay whatever is charged for a video-DSLR, as long as it is substantially lower than what a similarly capable dedicatedvideo-cam costs. This drives up prices of DSLRs for stills shooters.

yes, video is wasted on the majority of all DSLR-buyers
only a smallish proportion of purchasers uses (hi-end) video capabilities. Many others may capture a few short clips  after purchase "to try it out", but will never seriously use video in DSLRs at all. Videos that are up to the standars of "enthusiast amateur still photos" are not easy to produce. In terms of creative imagination, skills, time and money for planning, capture and post production, even a fairly simple video is beyond the realm of most amatuer DSLR purchasers. 

I for one would love to get a DSLR like the 5D3 with all video-capabilitis disabled in firmware [except liveview] at a 25-50% discount on current price.