April 23, 2014, 06:54:42 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 - ScottyP

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 32
346
Lenses / Re: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 HELP
« on: May 14, 2012, 08:26:56 PM »
I love mine.  It feels quite solid to me; much more so than the kit lenses.

347
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.

You have a sneering tone.  You had the same sneering tone in the other thread.  Thank you ever so much for "explaining it" to everyone.  You even explained it to everyone more than once, and we should be grateful.  Sorry it is hard for everyone to "wrap their heads around" the "facts" which you have been granted from up on high.  Perhaps if you printed your facts on some stone tablets and gave them to everyone, they would finally get the reverent acceptance they deserve.

348
Video is just one feature. 

I DON'T expect them to sell a no-video body for LESS MONEY. 

Instead of a lower price, I DO think they could offer a couple of small OTHER FEATURES to replace video, but still charge the SAME MONEY.

If you removed video, but replaced it with something appealing borrowed from a slightly higher-end model body I would take that, yes.  Just pick one feature to add; microfocus adjustment, better weatherproofing, slightly better AF, etc..

349
Abstract / Re: Water
« on: May 13, 2012, 08:09:16 PM »
Cool!

350
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¥!


Exactly!  The Yen-to Dollar exchange rate is the same reason why Honda Civics now cost over $90,000.00 in the US.  er...no, wait.  Honda Civics do NOT cost over $90,000.00.  They cost about the same in America as American cars do.  Hmmmmm.

If Canon wanted to, it could circumvent the exchange rate just as the Japanese car makers do.  Either make the products in Tennessee for sale in America like the Japanese car makers do, or make them in low-wage countries (which they already do), or both.

Could it have something to do with the fact you can easily drive a Nissan for a few years, then a Ford for a few years, then a Honda for a few years, etc... with no problem?  But not so for an entire camera and lens system.  You can't put a Canon Lens on a Nikon body, and you can't put a Nikon lens on a Canon body (without a goofy adapter that sucks).  Therefore, the actual competition between Canon and Nikon is greatly dampened.  Most of the competition is with first-time buyers, who have yet to commit to a system and lock themselves in.  Once you have bought in to one system or another, it is very difficult to liquidate it all and start from scratch buying everything all over again in the competitor's system, so few people will do it.  This highly convenient fact has not gone unnoticed by Canon, who feels freer to charge a lot of money for their products.  As long as they feel enough people are buying, they will keep the prices as high as they possibly can.
The only real competition is from 3rd party lens makers, as they actually DO make lenses that fit all the major camera systems.  Maybe they will step it up on quality.  Or to some extent in the 4/3 convention lenses where several camera bodies accept lenses in that format from their real competitors.

351
Welcome to the side of goodness.   ;)

By the way, your subject matter is certainly more interesting than average!  Guys tearing phone books, a brass pole kind of thing, and someone nwho looks serious about playing with fire!

352
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.

Quote
That 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.

Not griping about cost on 7D, just using that as an example as I am familiar with 60D and 7D.  Use two other adjacent Canon camera bodies if you prefer.  Canon camera systems compete with Nikon on tiers.  Nikon has a camera to match each level of Canon.  I am saying only that Canon could steal a march on Nikon by adding more features than the corresponding Nikon equivalent, and that the distinction of "no video" could prevent the enhanced model from directly undercutting the system above it in the Canon lineup. 
And that "astrophysics" camera had not "seen the light of day" until the day it did pop out into the light of day.  If a specialty that esoteric can be deemed "viable", then how wild and crazy is releasing a stills-only camera?  That is a proven product, with a large proven market, as stills cameras were the ONLY DSLR product until just 5 years ago or so.

353
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Does anyone here use a c-loop?
« on: May 12, 2012, 10:35:59 PM »
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. 

Thanks.


It feels very solid holding my 70-200 2-8, which is about the same weight.

354
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.

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.  That 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.

355
Check out the good review on The Digital Picture.  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx  Hopefully sharing a link to another website won't get me "thwacked" with a monopod or anything...

356
Opinions?
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.

All I (in the OP) did was ask if it costs something and if perhaps it is wasted on some people?  I also expressed doubt that it could literally cost nothing.  I went on to indicate that I felt photography is expensive enough without having to buy video whether you want it or not. 

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? 

Even if the true marginal cost of video is/were really almost negilgible, there is a percieved value, so maybe that provides a marketing opportunity.  Maybe they could avoid undercutting their other product lines with a cheaper stills-only body by using the justification/rationalization/distinction that the price is cheaper because it was stripped of video/audio capability.  Or perhaps I am over-analyzing this.

357
Sorry but it is hard to accept that the video capability is free.   Whether it is hardware of software or (probably) both, they market it as a selling point, so it must cost something.

Again, nothing against video, particularly simple video, but one shouldn't have to be rich to get into photography in a DSLR.

358

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 :-[ :-[ :-[
Do let us know if/when you decide to do it, though; it would make a great photo-op!

359
Site Information / Re: canonrumors and nikonrumors
« on: May 12, 2012, 12:33:28 AM »
Perhaps both sites ARE owned by the same company.  Watch for gradually more and more anonymous postings on both sites, all advocating for a pay-per-view cage match or something.  Bokeh Games?

360
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.

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?
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. 
Or, perhaps you could actually MEET a girl and then you could have her permission to photograph her. :-*

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 32