November 29, 2014, 12:11:03 AM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - EchoLocation

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 21
166
PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N
« on: January 07, 2013, 09:48:22 PM »

He slams the 5DIII as an upgrade - in what world is the 5DIII not a decent upgrade to the 5DII?  Yes, the 5DIII has DR capabilities (and IQ) equivalent to 5DII, but if it's crap, why are he and his friends still using it?  I contend that the thing about the 5DII that didn't need upgrading was the IQ - and Canon did a great job with AF, frame rate, dual slots, sealing, etc., i.e., everything else.
The 5DIII is an ok upgrade to the 5DII. In terms of what matters to me, the 5DIII basically is a 5DII, except with a vastly superior AF. They have similar sensors, MP, DR, etc. The 5DII had awesome image quality, when the 5DIII came out, no one was shocked or astounded by how good it was. Rather, we were told that in JPG, we might get 2 stops better ISO, maybe 1 stop better in RAW. I'm sure the 5DIII is better, but it is rather similar to the 5DII image quality wise and I'm not hearing many 5DII owners complaining about IQ compared to the III. In fact, for months after the 5DIII came out, when Nikon fans were showing reflections in eyeballs at full screen and giggling about how good the D800 was, Canon users were complaining about black borders at high ISO, smearing of details, and overly aggressive AA filtering. Now, the firmware is a little better, LR has better tools in place for editing, and now the 5DIII has settled in as a great camera(as the 5DII was.)
However, for me, the 5DIII is what the 5DII SHOULD HAVE been. If the 5DII had the AF of the 5DIII, then it would have KILLED the D700 in every way. Instead, the 5DII was awesome for video, while the D700 was more of a sports camera. If you want video and great skin tones, you went Canon, if you wanted AF you went Nikon(or 1D.) When the 5DII was current, all I wanted was better AF and I would have bought it. Me, and many other people think the 5DII should have had a better AF to begin with. Thus, prior to the 5DIII, all I really wanted was a 5DII with a better AF. However, given time, technology, etc. I thought that this upgrade would come in at a similar price point(every new Macbook pro with better features remains similarly priced to previous models.)
INSTEAD, the 5DIII came in at 1000 dollars more than the 5DII. The most obvious difference is the AF. So, in 4 years of waiting, Canon managed to release a somewhat similar camera to the 5DII, but with the AF the II should have had to begin with, and at a $1000 higher price.
So yes, for me the 5DIII was just an updated II with an inflated price tag. It looked like a great camera, but it should be for $3500!!!
I realize that you love Canon Neuro, but you need to understand that many people want to love Canon and were very disappointed in their products. I was a huge Canon fan for several years, but in the past 2 years got sick of their ridiculously inflated pricing on release(obv not a problem for some people here.)
Yes, the 5DIII was an upgrade, but it didn't come cheap, the price was also significantly higher.


167
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests
« on: January 07, 2013, 03:17:19 AM »
The only thing that holds this lens from being an excellent lens is price.  If price goes down to at least $900, then this will become one of the best lenses out there.  I'd buy this as a kit lens with 6D if Canon somehow finds a way to bundle it with 6D.  6D + 24-70 F4 IS for around $2500, I think everyone will be very happy.

+1.  Lower the price and this is perceived as a very good lens.
i agree. I liked the 24-105, but I always wanted something a little more compact to make up for the slow aperture. If i'm going to carry something big around, i'd rather have the F2.8. Thus, if this lens was 800ish, it would be a fantastic FF travel lens. I really like the idea of this lens, I just think that Canon is way off base with their prices.
L glass is cool.
F4 is not cool.
$1500 is a crapload of money. For that price, whatever lens I buy better be cool all the way around, not just because it's small and L.

168
Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo
« on: January 03, 2013, 10:43:40 PM »
A slow, mid range range zoom for $1500 dollars..... let me think...
um.... NO!

I get that this lens will be about 1100 dollars in a year or so, but these initial MSRP's really tick me off. I like to dream about getting newly released products, and am always tempted to be a first adopter. However, when I do dream about getting these shiny new toys, I don't like that dream to end with a steel toe boot kicking me in the balls after looking at the MSRP. All too often recently, Canon has been thrilled to do this to us(5DIII,24-70 2.8II, 35mm 2.0, this lens.)

This is a nice looking lens, mainly because of the size and the macro bonus, but for me, the sweet spot on price is about $800 bucks. F4 for me equals cheap, and this lens ain't that.

169
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: should I sell my 7d?
« on: December 31, 2012, 07:11:41 AM »
if you're considering it already, i'd say go ahead and sell it. The 5DIII is still young in it's life and the 7D is very old, but yet to be replaced. You definitely wont be disappointed in the 5DIII, it's a great camera. I believe the 7D should be replaced very soon(60D as well), and when that happens, the used price will drop.
Personally, i'd sell the 60D and keep the 7D, but hey, it's up to you.

170
So, what objective measure would you propose to determine 'better' - bearing in mind that's a rather subjective term. Which is the 'better' candidate in an election?   Heck, even the Green Party Pentax supporters get their own way.  :-X
Please don't drag this in to a political argument(although that was my first thought,) It's way too easy to get people riled up already.

Honestly, I think both Canon and Nikon make excellent products. Some companies make features that appeal to some buyers, some others. I honestly don't think anyone can objectively choose which one is "better." Canon certainly has a better selection of lenses, however at launch their prices have been much higher than those of Nikon the last couple of years.

What I want to know is, what was the market share of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, etc. On it's own, the market share of 2012 means a little, but if we compare it to the past few years, we may be able to spot some trends which will give us greater insight in to which manufacturer is gaining ground, or losing ground.

171
EOS Bodies / Re: Any update to the 60D in next 6months?
« on: December 29, 2012, 08:42:15 AM »
I believe the 7D was being sold for 999.99 a few days ago. You can get a used one or a refurb from Canons Customer Loyaltry program for under 1000 bucks.
If the AF of the 60D doesn't bother you, then i'd get a used 5D Classic for around $650 bucks or a used 5DII for hopefully $1200. I greatly prefer FF to crop, but then, you'll need new lenses as well.

172
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X FPS limiting factor?
« on: December 29, 2012, 08:14:56 AM »
All Crop sensors have less MP than full frame. They do not like me saying file size has anything to do with the physical size of the sensor. Of course two sensors with equal pixel density, the larger produces a larger file. Were not supposed to relate these two in this discussion though. They want to be hard core sticklers and say file size is controlled only by the number of MP, which is somewhat correct except there are a few other factors involved.
As has been said above, All crop sensors do not have less MP than full frame sensors.
What do you want from this thread exactly?
There have been numerous discussions on numerous different aspects of files size in relation to sensor size, MP, compression algorithims, and whatnot...
It was pretty clear from the second or third post that no one knows exactly which aspect of the 1DX limits the FPS. There are many different areas of concern that are all near (80%ish) of their capabilities.
There are many different opinions on this but no hard facts, we've heard many opinions(many from good sources) so far, but obviously you haven't heard one that satisfies you.
What exactly are you looking to hear? that the file size and Digic V's are the limiting factor(to corroborate the story you remember)? i'm a little confused on what we are arguing about at this point besides your lack of satisfaction from the answers given.

173
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Shooting With the EOS 6D in Costa Rica
« on: December 26, 2012, 02:19:42 AM »
I haven't heard of many normal people(with maybe one aging aps-c body and one or two lenses) choosing the 6D, only pro's and serious enthusiasts who just want a new Canon toy.
Depends what you mean by "normal", I guess, but I went from a Rebel XT to the 6D. Oh, and- yeah, not counting the Rebel's kit lens, I only had a 40mm pancake and EF75-300...
The 6D was never intended to better the 5D3.  It's fills a niche between the 5D3 and 7D in the EOS portfolio.  Those who are trashing it for not meeting or exceeding the 5D3's specs don't seem to understand that.
I fully understand that. But for Canon to leave out the 7D AF or better in a time(2012 not 2009) when nearly every Nikon has a better AF was pretty weak. All the new Nikon updates have at least a 39pt AF while Canon is still offering the same 9pt AF system that was lame when the 5D II came out years ago. For me, it wasn't impressive at all, especially for the launch price.
I'm sure lots of people disagree with me and are happy with the center point AF, but for me, I was over it. I already had a Canon 5D and the only problem was the ISO and the AF.
I waited for the 6D for a while as I have been wanting a lighter FF body for years(I travel a lot,) but when the specs were announced it was way too easy for me to not be interested in the camera, especially for $2100 dollars.

174
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 60D Stock Levels Getting Low?
« on: December 24, 2012, 03:34:05 AM »
I was totally underwhelmed with this camera from day one. I gave my cousin tons of crap for buying it over a year ago, at this point it is ancient history.
I cant believe the 60D and 7D are still Canon's most recent and best APS-C cameras in 2013!
Ding Dong! It is still 2012 (and we are not dead yet)  ;)
umm..... i'm fully aware of this.... do you think any new cameras are going to be released in the next week?

175
1994:Mom's 1980ish Minolta
Throughout my childhood: Many cheap P&S film cameras(mostly Kodak)
College(1999) Kodak Advantix(Girlfriend in college bought it for me)
2007: First Digital Camera, Sony DSC? 8MP
2010:Canon 550D
2011: Used Canon 5D Classic
2012: Used Nikon D700

In School, I was really disappointed with the quality of digital, and basically boycotted it. It wasn't until around 2005 or 2006 when I was finally semi happy with digital results. This was when 200 bucks on a camera was a fortune to me. Now, I'm loving my Nikon D700!

176
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d2 officially discontinued.
« on: December 23, 2012, 11:41:43 PM »
sad.
twas my first dream DSLR......
it will go down as a legend.

177
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Shooting With the EOS 6D in Costa Rica
« on: December 23, 2012, 11:37:53 PM »
i find it interesting that the only people in this thread who have a 6D both own 5DIII's and tons of other Canon stuff.
It seems like if you are neck deep in the Canon system and want something cheaper to fool around with from time to time than the 6D is a great choice.
To me, it seems like if you want the most for your money, with the best features, then the D600 would be a better choice.
I haven't heard of many normal people(with maybe one aging aps-c body and one or two lenses) choosing the 6D, only pro's and serious enthusiasts who just want a new Canon toy.
Personally, i was disgusted when the specs for the 6D were released and bought a D700. Even now, you can get the D600 with kit lens for less than the 6D body only.

178
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 60D Stock Levels Getting Low?
« on: December 23, 2012, 09:34:04 AM »
I was totally underwhelmed with this camera from day one. I gave my cousin tons of crap for buying it over a year ago, at this point it is ancient history.
I cant believe the 60D and 7D are still Canon's most recent and best APS-C cameras in 2013!

179
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: right now i am not happy to be a canon user
« on: December 20, 2012, 09:35:24 PM »
SWITCH.
I did.
I wanted a body that wasn't 3000 dollars that had an awesome AF. Canon didn't offer this product.
I bought a used D700 for $1500 bucks and a used 24-70 for $1400 bucks(this was 3 months ago), and I couldn't be happier.
The image quality of this setup is significantly better than my 5D Classic and 24-105, and the AF has upped my keeper rate from around 35% to around 75%.
I was worried I wouldn't like the image quality or feel of Nikon, but I actually love it.
At this point, you can buy a refurb D800 for $2300 from Adorama with a 1 year warranty.
For me, the answer was simple, and switching turned out to be easier than I thought.

180
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Hand on SONY RX 1.............AMAZING
« on: December 19, 2012, 10:06:54 PM »
An entry level FF NEX (NEX 9?) with same sensor for $1799 to compete with 6D/D600..WOWer  ;D
If they make a FF NEX, I'd expect the price to be closer to a 5DIII.... I'm thinking more like $2499 to $2999 at least.
There are wayyy too many people excited about that camera to release it at such a low price point(sub 2k is cheaper than any other new FF camera on the market.)

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 21