Sounds like you ready for 1DX...
@ CANONisOK - contact me. I know a authorized dealer that willing to talk about price.
Yes, many dealers will talk price.
The Canadians are getting a lower price from Canon, the MSRP in Canada is $6599, and the exchange rate makes it just over $6000. That's full price, versus $7300 in the USA. The inequity happens from time to time as currencies vary. If the gap gets wider, US dealers will complain a flood of buyers will order from Canada, and Canon will adjust the price just as they have in the past.
I'd suspect that many of the low cost cameras and lenses sold on ebay are coming from Canada. They have a Canada / USA Warranty card with them.
I've looked at buying a camera from Canada recently, but unless its a expensive one, the difference is not worth the effort.
A crop sensor mirrorless is not going to threaten the success of the Full Frame Sony a7.
I totally agree!
That's why I will never pay ludicrous amounts for APS-C sensored mirrorless cameras and lenses that can only handle APS-C imaging circle [like Fuji X-stuff] but will rather wait for the next generation mirrorless FF camera ... as compact as the A7 ... and even more "competent" as a relly universal photographic tool.
Specifically: better AF [fully tracking-capable], fully electronic shutter [absolutely silent, 100% vibration-free], better battery charge [500+ shots] and user interface/ergonomics like a Canon EOS ... with thumb-wheel, back-button AF and mode dial with AvTvM :-) plus 3 custom positions and WiFI and a Canon RT-flash controller built in ... now that I have finally splurged on 600EX-RTs :-)
I think you don't want to hold your breathe on a mirrorless FF. It'll be an extreme niche with very poor lens line-up and support.
Read the previous arguments on smaller side sensor replacing FF and FF going the way Medium Formats have gone today.
It's mind boggling how brainwashed people are on FF being the god all-mighty form factor. I guess change is scary to a lot of people.
There are posts about putting a cell phone in the microwave and calling the number, but evidently that is not a very conclusive test at all.
Good luck with it.
That's not a "gear list" it's more of a ranking. The more time you waste posting to this site the more expensive the camera under your name becomes. It has no relationship whatsoever with what cameras you may or may not own.
The prediction above was that all pros will be using small format cameras (smaller than full frame) and that only hobbyists will use full frame, and that this would happen in the not too distant future. The past does not tell us that. If the march to smaller formats were so inevitable, then NO commercial or landscape photographer would be using medium format today. They would have all moved to full frame or smaller. That's obviously not not true, as many continue to use medium format, as do some portrait photographers. Likewise they won't all move to smaller than full-frame in the near or not too distant future.
There was a time that Wedding photographers uses mostly Medium Format, etc for weddings. Then it's mostly 35mm. Nowadays there's even people that's doing paid weddings via Fuji or M43. Some will stay at 35mm of course. But MILCs are now getting to a point that some are willing to bet their livelihood on them. Whether cropped cameras will replace FF as the predominant format for various professional work (not for all of them, just as Medium Format still exists), only time will tell. But it can be assured that as cropped systems become better and better that more and more will adopt it for paid work.
Well, I agree with all of that as it's a reasonable, realistic assessment. I disagree with c.d embrey's claims that "In the not-to-distant-future only hobbyists will use Full Frame, and pros will have moved-on to smaller formats." Some hobbyists, yes. Some pros, yes. But it's too much of a blanket statement to be true for everybody. Full frame and optical viewfinders have a lot of appeal for pros, and pros have *very* diverse needs. EVFs and small formats are great, but they don't meet everyone's needs all of the time. I'm using 3 formats for paid work and finding each is good in its way.
Since the beginning of photography pros have always moved-on to smaller formats. Really large format cameras were replaced by 8x10 cameras which were replaced by 4x5.
At one time there were 6x9, 6x8, 6x7 and 6x6 medium format film cameras. Then these camera were mostly replaced by 6x4.5 film cameras, which were replaced by 6x4.5 digital. But that doesn't stop Martin Schoeller from shooting covers for Time magazine with 120 film, using a Fuji rangefinder camera (Texas Leica).
Like it or not One Inch cameras are good enough for many pro jobs right now. By the time that the iPhone 7 comes along there will be an App that triggers strobes (just like a Pocket Wizard) And there will be young pros shooting with an iPhone and Profoto strobes
There are some hobbyists (and a few pros) shooting 8x10 cameras. Other hobbyist ares shooting panoramas with 4x10 cameras instead of stitching digital. There are also a few people using Banquet Cameras (7x17 in. and 12x20 in.) Nothing in photography ever truly goes away. The Impossible Project is bringing back 8x10 Polaroid https://www.the-impossible-project.com/8x10/ Me, I'd like to see them bring back Type 55 film. BTW in the future there will be hobbyists added to this group who will use Medium Format and Full Frame
Heraclitus (c. 535 BC – 475 BC) is reputed to have said: "There is nothing permanent except change." Sounds reasonable to me. YMMV.
The SL1 is built for a different price level and a different user than the XT-1. There is some overlap, but it's not going to match a much more expensive camera like the XT1. Canon makes more feature-rich cameras in the the $1,300 price range of the XT1, just not in the size factor that you want.
I share your desire for better small products. For example, I would love to see an SL1 with AFMA and other higher-level features. But the typical SL1 user would never use AFMA, would not want to know about it, and would not use lenses that benefit from it. So Canon chose not to clutter the SL1 with too much stuff. Designing a camera for a type of user (e.g., beginner level, casual user) makes good business sense, even if it doesn't please every photographer. Many camera buyers are instantly turned off by too much complexity.
Canon actually issued a major firmware upgrade for the 7D in 2012 (when the camera was nearly 3 years old), so Fuji is not unique in this respect:
Also, Fuji has been upgrading some sluggish aspects of their cameras, which is great, but Canon does not need to do this.
That's my point. Canon will always treat smaller as cheaper. EF-S and EF-M as beginners. Only big and heavy is good. FF is for some reason the 'holy grail' and magical, when in fact it's an arbitrary size that gained popularity some 50+ years ago, and which Canon is marketing to death as the holy grail because that's where their product line and profit margin is at.
I've no doubt that Canon will always have the margin, volume and revenue. But for those that want a compact high-end system, just forget about Canon. Canon will never deliver.
The thing is...Canon's 400 f2.8 LIS and it's subsequant mkII version are a two of Canon's finest lenses todate. They are some of the sharpest and most optically impressive lenses ever made by anyone. Nikon will have a hard time comeing close to Canon's products in this niche. Nikon's 400 f2.8 hasn't been in the same league as Canon's for some time and trucst me when I say that even the mkI LIS version is truely exceptional optic. On my 5DIII i can see very little difference wide open and stopped down and wide open with 1.4x TC...better than a 70-200 f2.8 II LCurrent canon 400mm f2.8 IS II is solid. Will be a challenge for them.
There's no IQ upgrade from the mkI to mkII unlike all the other new white teles, which says a lot about the Canon mkI 400 LIS. Sure the new one is lighter but from an optical point of view, there is little between them.
Why stop there? I don't see the point buying crop or 4/3 sensor when A7 series offers better low light shooting with 35mm sensor.
If size and weight is not a factor, I don't think this discussion would've existed in the first place, as most everyone would've remained on DSLRs, A7 wouldn't be the answer in this case. But if size and weight is a factor, then going down to Fuji and M43rd is necessary.
The other problem with A7 is the lens line-up.....