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.
Come on folks this is where the market is - Embrace technology
If memory serves me correctly, Canon produced two DO (diffractive optics) lenses: 400/4 IS and 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS. The zoom is still current but no more DO lenses have been announced since those original two. The DO design was highly touted at the time, but seems to have been forgotten/shelved (?). Does anyone know why? Was it primarily IQ, manufacturing tolerances, slow sales, or-? (I'm new to the Forum, so apologies if this subject has been raised before.) Thanks in advance.
Mentioned? yes. Addressed well? no. Sensors only heat when active. If you're shooting stills then this is no problem for you. So what's the problem?
The premise of the anti-video crowd is that adding video features inherently undermines still photography, and that a camera that was designed, ground-up, as a stills-only camera would produce better-quality stills and a better still-shooter experience. The Leica is a counter-example to the assertion that stills-only produces better IQ, even though it is a substantially larger sensor and was selected/designed for stills-only.
I strongly recommend the following. Especially because you have $2500 to spend. That is a lot of money to get a nice gear with an outlook towards the future.
The body I recommend getting a second hand 450D. ...
If you want to shoot video, then get a second hand 550D.
It has the same size sensor as the 600D, 60d and the 7D, so you wont notice any significant image improvement.
The EF-S lenses for APS-C bodies like the 600D are not as good in terms of build and image quality.
May i reccommend putting your money into a 24-105 f/4 or a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. The 24-70 MKI is selling quite cheap as the MKII is coming out.
Another idea is to buy the 24-70 MKII new with a used 450D body.
Then a year later, you can afford to throw away that body, and if you are ready to move into full frame ...
Just my 2 cent and my experiences. Ive had loads of cheaper EF-S lenses, tamron lenses, sigma lenses, started with super zooms, and slow aperatures, but like everyone else, I learnt about he L lenses, the fast aperatures. I hope you will get there without spending too much unecessary money, ...
AvTvM, all you've just said is theoretical;
In short, I'd ask you this: what, precisely, of the following chain of events is substantially different between still and video? And which of that is not already a requirement of consumer cameras?
1. Expose sensor
2. Read data from sensor
4. Encode a frame
5. Save to media
Really, I don't get it: why is video not just a (nearly) free bonus?
why the hate?
The evolution of DSLR's into HDSLR's is hard to accept by those who will never use video functionality.
And while I am on the video side of the end-user fence, I understand their feelings ...why are they paying for video in a form factor that- up to recent history - has been exclusively their domain .. still photography.
In fact, when I spend literally hours setting up and fine tuning for a shoot using an HDSLR, the effort involved is similar to shooting 35mm cinema ... the camera requires exact, metered lighting, the gear (mattebox, Follow Focus, external monitors, sound recorders et al) takes forever to properly assemble ... I wonder why I just didnt invest in a regular video camera to begin with (and probably saved money all the while).
So let the pure photographers gripe, they have a point. But at the end of the day, I love the craft, the gear, and the final product that I am getting from my camera.
Customer paid for the option and use a software key to unlock the option.
Are you really suggesting Canon use a licensing model to lock capabilities that are intrinsic in the hardware? I think that would generate WAY more ill will than just a price increase.
So you want every feature of the 1Ds3 except that you want an APS-C sensor that doesn't exist
I dont understand the obsession with APS-C technology
A lens that might beat the Sigma you mentioned is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC. It's very sharp for its price. Less zoom range, but f/2.8 on the whole range. Cheaper too.
Used 1Ds3 are going for about the same price as a 5DII in the UK
It may be outdated but it still produces very fine pictures. If you are prepared to put up the 21mp, 5fps, 2 card slots, pro AF with a limitation of iso 3200 then it makes a lot of sense - and it is cheaper than the 5DIII too
A 1960s Rolls Royce is outdated by a VW Golf - but I would still prefer the RR if it was in good repair And the RR would be less than the Golf too.