I love mine. It feels quite solid to me; much more so than the kit lenses.
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.
This poll is fundamentally flawed because the correct answer is not included:
Would you pay more (30-50%) for a stills-only camera?
Trying to be patient here. I've explained this in another thread. Video makes cameras cheaper, not more expensive.
I know that's hard for some people to wrap their head around, but so long as the marginal cost of adding video is less than the increased profits from added sales due to video, the price is less for a video-enabled camera than for one that is not video-enabled.
If you want to debate whether or not video optimization introduces compromises to still image quality, that's a different issue. But, as far as cost goes, you are not "paying" anything for video.
Video is not the reason this thing is more expensive. The 5D2 HAD video when it came out and it did not cost this much. Getting rid of video will not change the fact that Canon is getting greedy.
No, getting rid of video won't make the US Dollar buy more Japanese Yen.
If that was the issue, then almost all new Canon products would be seeing a massive price hike like this, and they aren't.
Then I wonder what explains the high growth of lens prices (http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-lenses-better-stocks/) for some years now... Compare to the USD value against the Yen: the dollar lost ⅓ of its value against the yen in five years!
Should have Canon (a Japanese company, may I remind you, whose accounts are done in Yens) really followed it, a lens costing $1000 (= 120000¥) in August 2008 should be $1500 now!
For every product that's gone up in price, I can name one that's stayed the same. Their printers, their powershots, the starter DSLR line, etc.
That's because they're completely different products! Lens are to be expected to stay to the same price over large amounts of time, whereas printers, and low-end DSLRs are only on the market for a (low) fixed amount of time and discontinued. Moreover, they could even almost be sold at a loss as that would be tallied on the accessories (ink and lenses, respectively).
And, on Canon's point of view (accounts in Yen, again), the 5D mk3 cost less for the US consumer than the 5D mk2: 5D2 (+24-105) list price was $20083499, which is 420,000¥, whereas the 5D3 (+24-105) is $20124299, which is only 340,000¥!
Let me put it differently then. Take a for example something like the 60D. Canon could leave the price the same (not drop it as in my previous post), but SWAP out the video features for one or two things near and dear to the still-shooter's heart. Drop video, but add in something from the next level above 60D, like the microfocus adjustment and AF from the 7D for example.
A stills specialty camera.
Then it would basically be a 7D (at a lower price) which is their stills specialty camera. even though they threw in video, no flip screen, no magic lantern and a bunch of stills oriented features -- it's a stills camera.
It seems that your complaints amount to generic complaining that the 7D is "too expensive" .
I think there is a sound business reason that the product you propose has never seen light of day -- just not viable. They wouldn't sell it in sufficient quantities to be able to get the price down.QuoteThat could catch Nikon flat-footed. One minute Nikon thinks they have the edge on Canon for a particular level of camera, then BAM. Using technology Canon already has, it suddenly owns that level as far as stills-shooters are concerned.
They already have the 7D. Lowering prices of your high end products much of a strategy for success.
I bought a shoulder strap from Luma Loop. It is their "Cinch Strap". It too hangs the camera upside-down but it connects at 2 points so the camera cannot "twirl" around like it does hanging from just 1 point. It is forced to lie flat against your side or back. The other part I like about it is the "Cinch" feature; you tug the little leather grasp and the strap gets short for snug carrying with no swinging. Tug it again and it lengthens for shooting.
I really like it. http://luma-labs.com/products/cinch
Yes, that looks like a great set up too. I wonder how that will work with my 200/2 lens (5 lbs); I don't want to stress the EF mount too much. That's the only negative to that set up. The sinlge point hook up of the cloop will remove al stress from the EF mount, but a 5 lbs load on one point is not the best. Yet, I'm sure the failure rate is so low it's moot.
Nothing against video. I just think maybe (or maybe not!) having one good model with little or no video could possibly permit Canon to offer a unit with very good stills capability at a lower price point. If Canon can make an "astrophysics" version, and apparently Leica can make a B&W only version, then surely a stills-only (or stills and very basic video only) version is not such an odd-duck?
Leica make stills only cameras but they are not cheap. That is the part you're missing -- a cheap stills only camera would not be a viable product unless it sold enough and didn't undercut other products. Stills only models are niche products and therefore quite expensive.
The good news is that if you really do want a stills only body, there are some very good inexpensive stills only cameras on the market -- the 40D, the 50D, and the 5D classic. Canon aren't interested in selling a stills only full frame body for less than $1000- or a stills only APS-C for less than $500-, but you could buy one in those price ballparks if that was what you really wanted.
Is all the expensive, ever-more sophisticated video capability jacking up the price of DSLR's? Is super-serious video/audio capability wasted on most purchasers of DSLR's?
Should they come out with at least a couple models of stills-only DLSR's that would cost less for people who don't shoot any "serious" video? If I buy a pair of snow skis, they don't force me to buy a set of golf clubs at the same time. If the camera body I'd like costs $3,500, but $1,200 of it is just the video capability I won't use, I'd just as soon pass on that munti-functionality.
Do let us know if/when you decide to do it, though; it would make a great photo-op!
The answer is obvious. You need to either disguise yourself as a bikini-clad girl to get in closer
Now that would get me locked away ...... or I would have to have an all over waxing and shave the beard off
I know the 70-300L is newer and with better optics and IS system. I have the older 70-300 IS (non-L) and the 300mm IQ is pretty bad. The other option for me is the 70-200 F/4 IS, but after spending a week in San Diego, 200mm on the beach just may not cut it.The answer is obvious. You need to either disguise yourself as a bikini-clad girl to get in closer, or you need to construct some sort of "girl blind" to conceal yourself in.
I couldn't even get real close shots of bikini-clad women. Sorry if this offends anyone. I've seen sample shots of the 100-400 and they are very good. Same with the 70-300L. What I always hear is from 200mm to 300mm is not THAT noticeable. But from 200mm to 400mm is significantly longer, of course. What to do?