August 02, 2014, 12:54:31 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 - 7enderbender

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 43
EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: October 29, 2011, 07:18:43 PM »
All I was trying to say is that Canon obviously did not sell such a great many of 7Ds as they might have hoped for.

Can you document this? Amazon lists the 7D body at #9 (5DII is #14) and indicates it has been in the top 100 DSLRs for 787 weeks (which roughly coincides with its entire lifespan) This does not include two versions with kit lenses that are ranked #29 and #34.

Granted Amazon is just one dealer, but it is sufficiently large to serve as a reasonably representative sample of the relative sales rankings of products.

If you have access to better sales figures, please share them. I have never come across anything that would indicate that the 7D has not been a very successful camera for Canon.

a) I've heard that from a local dealer and have no specif data to back that up
b) I remember when it first came out dealers here in the area assumed that the 7D would be a big hit and would   put a dent into their 5DII sales


c) if you look at the camera usage stats on flickr for instance you'll see that there are over 10,000 average daily users who have one of the recent Rebels. Around 4,100 have a 5DII. 3,300 have a 7D and only 1700 used a 60D.

You could argue that the 5DII has been around for longer and that the data may be kind of shaky to begin with, but given the price points and the significantly larger audience that is prone to buy more on the budget side and interested in crop sensors, Canon probably expected this to be in a different order. Especially the 60D must bum them out, though I totally understand why it may have tanked.

 But then again, there is a lot of guesstimating here on my part and this is far from a scientific market analysis that people pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: October 29, 2011, 05:16:55 PM »
And I personally can understand why that is since I came to the same conclusion. The price difference when buying a complete new system is not that big and at that point I figured that I'm much better off with the full frame 5DII since that is what I really wanted to begin with. The 7D in a way is really a specialty camera for wild for instance.

I think you would be very surprised how many 5DII owners have 7Ds as well.

The cost of the 5DII is not just the body - but the lens as well. I have a 400f/2.8 IS which is a terrific super tele on the 7D. What lens for the 5DII would you suggest would match that?

Take my 70-200 f/2.8 - on the 5DII the nearest is the 70-300L - not really a match.

Move down to the 135F2 and 85 f1.2  and do the same comparison.

The 5D2 is a great camera - providing you can get the lens, the fps and the AF to match the subjects you take.

The 7D is the top of the NON specialist bodies.

Well, again, there are different approaches to this and for some people, like yourself, this is a great match. All I was trying to say is that Canon obviously did not sell such a great many of 7Ds as they might have hoped for.

And I would think that for more users your usage and use of lenses does not work that way. If you need long reach I get how you like that the 400 is even longer. And that's about it. For everything else I specifically did NOT want a crop sensor because I like it that 24mm is in fact 24mm. And that my beloved 50 is indeed exactly that. Same with the 135, which for my intentions would become rather useless given how those gems have been used for decades. And for everything else I have my fast 200 which is about the longest I have any use for under normal circumstances - and as a 320mm would become rather problematic and require a tripod. I can still always crop later if I feel like it.

For me the math on the two bodies plus one lens to start with was: 5DII kit with the 24-105 = around $3200 (Nov 2010 after discount at local dealer). 7D + 24-70 2.8L = around $3000 as separate items. That would have been roughly equivalent to achieve similarly shallow DOF (which is important to me). That plus the need to then purchase a super wide angle lens and only very expensive options to get to a fast 50mm range would have made the endeavor more expensive and likely may have entailed some buyer's remorse in the end.

That being said: I could totally see adding a 7D as a second body at some point. It is in fact a great alternative to a teleconverter in that sense. Or I may be packing away a second 5DII at a good price point once we know where the 5DIII (or whatever) is headed.

I think we have to slowly come to the conclusion that the folks who kept predicting the end of "full frame" were maybe not right. Canon seemed to just have eliminated the old compromise of the 1.3x sensor which only ever existed because of technical limitations. The 5DII remains one of the biggest hits in Canon's history. And most people who buy cropped sensor do so because the are on a budget and buy Rebel kits. Yes, there are one or two very good EF-S lenses now, but in general the pro lens line up remained geared towards the 35mm format. I don't see any indications that this will change.

My prediction: the 7D will go away. The 60D will go away. APS-H sensors will go away. Cropped sensors will be strictly for the budget line. Canon will close the gap with one or two full frame cameras, one of which will be sort of a replacement of the 5DII (but may be a little disappointing featurewise to current users).

EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: October 29, 2011, 02:23:57 PM »
Hi.  I'll probably pick up a new camera next year, and am weighing up the pros and cons of APS-C vs FF.  I'm curious - why is there so much interest in the 5Diii compared with a 7Dii?  A 5Diii with 7D build, AF and speed would seem to be many people's dream come true.  I appreciate many of the benefits of FF - shallower depth of field, less noise at higher ISOs etc.  But with all of the hype, you start to think that the only benefit of the APS-C sensor is the lower price and 1.6x crop for longer lenses, but for everything else it is an inferior product.   If a 5Diii was virtually identical to a 7Dii except it had more megapixels on a larger sensor, would the joys and benefits of using a FF camera really be that noticeable in the real world?  Do people who have made the switch from APS-C to FF agree that it is the best decision that they've ever made and wish they had done it sooner?  Or after making the change, have you been left wondering what all the fuss is about?  Would appreciate your thoughts.  Thanks.

Lots of people have their own preferences and reasoning around this. The problem seems to be that from the numbers I've looked into I would think that the 7D didn't sell very well. So there may not be a 7DII in that sense.

And I personally can understand why that is since I came to the same conclusion. The price difference when buying a complete new system is not that big and at that point I figured that I'm much better off with the full frame 5DII since that is what I really wanted to begin with. The 7D in a way is really a specialty camera for wild for instance. There the (supposedly) faster AF and the crop makes sense to some degree while maintaining high enough build quality. For everything else a 5DII type camera is just a bit better. And the folks that are on a budget or not that into the technical details a good Rebel kit is a really good choice.

Just look at the usage data on flickr for instance. It's mostly Rebels, the 5DII and a bunch of older models. The 7D and especially the 60D don't fare very well by that measure.

Lenses / Re: Canon 24/105mm f/4L IS USM vs Canon 24/70mm f/2.8L USM
« on: October 22, 2011, 05:07:10 PM »
Which lens do you prefer and why?

Canon 24/105mm f/4L IS USM OR Canon 24/70mm f/2.8L USM

Oh well. I actually voted for the 24-70 though I actually own the 24-105. I have it because it was a great deal with my 5DII. It's very good. It's versatile. It makes for a great lens when traveling. I like the long end of it. I think the 24-70 is better for two reasons: f/2.8 for shallower DOF and the fact that it does NOT have IS. IS is a useless gadget and turned off 99% of the time because I don't trust anything that moves around things in the optical axis. It'll break one day and things will be out of whack. On the other hand zooms and AF lenses don't last forever anyway. So maybe it's a mute point. And zooms have always been the weakest link even before AF and IS and all that.

I'm still torn if it's worth adding the 24-70 one day, trading in the 24-105 or if I should rather invest that money into other primes first.

Lenses / Re: Any info about a new 50/1.4 II ?
« on: October 22, 2011, 04:56:45 PM »
I read a few months ago various comments about a new 50/1.4 II : do you have any News about it ?

That would in fact be great. Same lens only better mechanical build would do. And then an update to the 580EXII and I'm pretty much all set.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Canon USA Press Release
« on: October 18, 2011, 09:46:19 AM »
Bye bye Canon, hello Nikon.

You won't be seeing me here anymore, good luck with new Prosumer 18mp camera kids, and keep an eye on EBay, all my lenses etc will be there soon.

Aren't you overreacting a bit here? Not that I personally think that the features of the new 1D X warrant trading in my 5DII and shelling out several thousands of dollars (especially since I don't do this for a living and don't need to rely on the top notch build quality of the 1-series). I had to chuckle a bit when I read about face detection and saw that the AF points are still all centered around the middle, which still makes me want the M9 rather than a more expensive Canon SLR. But be that as it may - why would it matter if the thing is 21MP, 18MP or 12MP when there is no professional printing technology around that would translate all the data into say, a 8x10 photograph. And I mean photograph, not Office Jet print out. It's all a mute point.

But for now I'm curious to see real life results from the new flagship.

Canon General / Re: Photography - Equipment or Skill ?
« on: October 12, 2011, 04:21:02 PM »
We spend allot of time here comparing equipment and extensively analyzing the pros and cons of bodies, lenses, etc.

However - many people say, that the real ingredient for producing special pictures - is the skill of the photographer. Many all time famous monumental photographs where taken black and white with "simple" equipment. The special part of those photos is often the content and meaning of the picture - much less the "sharpness" or other tech features.

How important is our equipment ? Would you agree that it more like 85% skill and 15% equipment ?

I think that really depends, as many have pointed out already. The technical aspects of photography are not really "hard" compared to other skills and art forms. Good equipment makes it both, easier and more flexible. Non of this has to do with composition, "having an eye" and the creative thought process. Yet good tools are always a plus. Using a screw driver to stir paint can not exactly be attributed to being creative if you know what I mean.

And for some things there are certain minimum criteria. I personally always liked playing with depth of field so fast and or long lenses and big sensors/film are a plus. In the film days this was relatively affordable. With digital today it's on average more expensive. My first digital camera, a point & shoot just couldn't do much of what I wanted it to do. So that was a clear technical component that was not sufficient. But for most of the other aspects it wouldn't really matter if I was using my 5DII, a Leica M9 or an entry-level Rebel kit and whatever is messed up or flat out boring is due to my own limitations and not the cameras'. In fact, I believe that some equipment challenges can help improve skills.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.

5D Mark III

- 32 Megapixels
- no more low iso noise problems
- 7D Autofocus
- Improved Dynamic Range
- Lower noise (signal to noise ratio not just noise reduction)

24-70mm F/2.8 IS

- Capable of resolving around 32 megapixels wide open or nearly wide open.

Seriously. They would sell these things faster than they could produce them.

Non of this would excite me or make me "upgrade". And I don't think we need a new lens in order to resolve 32MP (or whatever). And I would certainly hope they don't put IS into the 24-70, though I might then be able to pick up the current version cheaper to compliment my 24-105 instead of trading it.

The limitations of AF are a different problem. What I'd like to see in the future are AF points that are spread out much further then even on the 1 series. And I would finally like to see a digital body that allows for very good manual focus. That is the bigger problem for me since I'm really not all that fond of AF in general but "modern" SLRs are not build for anything else really.

Canon General / Re: Canon 5dmii quirk or software issue?
« on: September 18, 2011, 09:16:20 AM »
I use that same exact combination but never Bridge for the download but rather the Canon EOS utility tool. I prefer that latter because it works easily with my naming convention for the downloads.

In any case, I would try the Canon tool to test if there is a problem with the camera or card etc. Then make sure that the Adobe stuff is up to date. There were just a few new updates for Bridge and CS5 (depending on which version you have). If that doesn't help I would try Bridge on a different computer just to make sure that it's not a limitation of or conflict on your current machine.

EOS Bodies / Re: APS-C Camera with an L Lens as a Kit
« on: September 14, 2011, 09:56:25 AM »
Just curious: what are you using now?
People always say (I also do ;-): "Don't panic. Your current cam won't stop taking pictures, right now" if they are whining about new cameras... But well my camera almost DOES. I have 350D. I'm using it half private and half for my job (flyers, marketing product photography etc.) I often come to the limits of the cam...

For that purpose APS-C would be quite enough, but a customers asked me if Icould do a small image film of their company additionaly I want to start a professional video blog. And well... for that purpose a full frame cam would be kind of nice... kind of VERY nice  :)

Especially at a project where you are recording yourself, a flip screen is a everything else but not "useless".

Get the 60D
The problem is that I made a big mistake! I went to the shop and took the 7D in my hand... The next mistake I made was looking through the view finder (man! The AF of the 7D is REALLY cool, the 100% VF also)


All of that makes perfect sense. If your current crop camera serves you well artistically and professionally I see no reason to switch to a different format. Given your specific need for this type of video application the 60D seems like a good choice.

But here is my thought - and take it with a grain of salt because I have different applications and rarely ever do anything that resembles professional work in those areas. I always enjoyed photography and if there sometimes is something that is somewhat "professional" it's more along the lines of a "vanity business". I really don't enjoy video production so it's just family stuff for me and very rarely helping out in a pinch. Hence, I have never even tried the video capabilities of my 5DII and rather rely on my little DV camera. And when I recently helped my wife with a work project that included interviewing people I actually took a pro video camera from a local studio with me. That was way easier than trying to figure out how to use my 5DII and hook it up to decent audio equipment etc.

What I'm saying is that, yes, the new EOS cameras are being used by professional and enthusiast video folks because of the large sensors, low light capability and DOF options. But it is also pretty difficult and in the end expensive to do this right.

If I did this for money I'd have each tool fitting each need. Get the 7D or 5DII (or whatever) that you like for stills and get a decent used video cam for the other stuff. Again, my 5c based on my limited and unique experience.

Lenses / Re: 3D EF lens
« on: September 14, 2011, 09:36:17 AM »
Given Canons success with the video side of its DSLRs it's inevitable they are going to want to keep pace, and the current demand for 3D is almost overwhelming.  Virtually all new screens are now offering 3D and the price is falling all the time, the issue is content for which there is huge demand.

I remember the 'Nimslo' 3D camera (nearly bought one) as I remember film had to be sent to some country like Switzerland for processing, it's nothing new for stills, but given todays multi media methods it can't be long before there's demand from web users for 3D images.  I can see a day when news organisations print an image in 2D and have 3D (switchable) on their web pages.  It might someday be the case that anyone wanting to supply commerical images is forced by market pressure to offer a 3D option.

Sometime there will inevitably be a 3D lens for EOS cameras I hope it's not too expensive!

Really? Hasn't this been tried for decades without ever taking off? But now this time around it'll all be different? I don't see it. It's a gimmick nothing more. I was waiting for my wife downtown recently and the kids and I sat down in the TV section of a BestBuy. So we tried the big 3D TV screen. Very unimpressive. You couldn't pay me to put one of those into our family room. But then again, I'm the type who still has pretty basic cable and a small CRT TV hidden in a closet. There is still a lot of reading in our house. Actual books.  That's 3D enough for me. [/social commentary]

EOS Bodies / Re: APS-C Camera with an L Lens as a Kit
« on: September 13, 2011, 02:02:07 PM »
I suggest deciding on a format now and sticking with it.  Either get 5D2 plus 24-105, or 7D plus 15-85.

Yop, you're right... The problem is: The needs and requirements for new "toys" are growing fast if you surfing the net and watching videos... Actually the only thing I'm missing at a 7D or the 5D is a flip screen...

Probably I'll just wait until the next announcment from Canon... Either the 7D2 or the 5D3.

Just curious: what are you using now? And what are you intending to use the swivel screen for? To me this is a pretty useless feature that I hope Canon will never introduce to the 5 or 1 series (or equivalent). Another part that breaks without any normal use value. It's an SLR for a reason. "Live view" is one of those things that are really meant for very special applications. Again, just my view.

EOS Bodies / Re: APS-C Camera with an L Lens as a Kit
« on: September 13, 2011, 01:53:40 PM »
I'm completley torn...

Actually I want a 7D (or successor), but I really like the 24-105L. But the problem is, if I buy a 7D body and a 24-105 seperately I'll pay (at Amazon) 2345 EUR. This is quite a lot. The problem is, that the 5D II Kit with the 24-105 is just 2555 EUR. Thats just 210 Euros more.
I never wanted a full frame camera... but well... just about 200 bucks more für a fullframe body... this is hard and kind of frustrating...
The same problem comes if you want a 60D with a 15-85...

Why aren't there more different Kits?

This exactly what I point out to people when the subject 7D vs 5DII comes up. It's what I figured when I was in the market for my first digital SLR last year. Only that I wanted "full frame" anyway all along which is why I waited so long to transition from film.

But in all fairness, the market is already pretty spaced out within three main SLR segments: entry level kits, mid range kits and anything that appeals to serious enthusiasts and pros willing to shell out some serious cash. I looked at the 7D briefly. The problem was that not only did I really want a 5DII but also the kit lens did not appeal to me at all. And going "L" on these crop bodies is also somewhat questionable for general photography because you'll miss out at the wide end or pay even more extra. Not that a 7D with, say a 24-70, 24-105 or 16-35 wouldn't go a long way. But you already did the math...So unless you care mostly about the long end then it makes limited sense to most people to save 300 or 400 bucks that you'll spend elsewhere.

Just my take though.

Canon General / Re: An article Canon should read.
« on: September 07, 2011, 09:22:08 AM »
Very interesting article/business case indeed. But I happen to disagree with it. I agree with the general notion of disruptive technology and how these things have been handled pretty smartly by Mr. Jobs. He is an exceptional leader. In no way does the situation compare to the auto industry. Detroit's problems are rooted in running companies like bureaucracies - thanks in part to the outrageous deals that the unions were able to make over decades. This is not about "cheaper and smaller cars" as some people claim. Today's European and Japanese car fleets for the most part are neither cheaper nor smaller.

Canon and Nikon are in a very unique market segment. The only similarity that I see with Apple is that a lot of the sales are based on image and perception. And I would argue that Canon and Nikon actually live up to a lot of the expectations of the pro-level and mid-range buyer, while mostly satisfying the vast number of P&S buyers. Not a bad business concept in my book. If Apple on the other hand will survive without their big follower-creating Steve Jobs has yet to be seen. I don't see how most Apple products are in any way superior. I came pretty close a few times to buying an Apple computer and decided against it any time. Those that are used by pros in the creative industry are very expensive and at the same time very limited in a number of ways. If photography and/or music was not only my passion but my day job I'd probably have one of the big ones. Everything else is a toy. Pretty styling (obviously important if you sit at Starbucks all day) and good enough to write emails and to be on Facespace or whatever. Other than that I find most of their stuff more than annoying. I do like my iPod classic though - simple and big enough to hold my entire CD collection at a halfway decent sample rate. But their laptops are a joke. Either big and expensive or they don't even have a firewire connection that I need for a bunch of hardware that still serves me well. And anything touchscreeny just makes me cringe. That's why I still love my ThinkPads, regular PCs with Win XP and my old fashioned BlackBerry with a real keyboard.

But that's me. Obviously a lot of way more hip people think otherwise. The question remains for how long. Apple got really lucky with the iPod. Nobody was ever able to come up with an alternative. The iTunes store was a very smart move. I doubt that they will be able to continue this with their other gadgets. There are already plenty of alternatives to the iPad and iPhone for those folks who like this approach. Image alone may not cut it for much longer, especially after Mr. Jobs retirement.

EOS Bodies / Re: Getting a little bit Fed Up...
« on: August 23, 2011, 12:29:14 PM »
I would never buy the latest kit, the problem is that it takes an age for Adobe & other software providers to issue their RAW / ACR updates, meaning that you have a camera which for professional use is just about useless.

You would also never get that "out of the box, new feeling". This is a matter of opinion... some people can't wait for Christmas, others couldn't care. I will install Beta operating systems to see what's new and work through the bugs - others will stick with Windows XP because it's more "stable"

At least I know when I have a brand new camera that the support will eventually follow :D

That's a good comparison. Was just thinking about that as well. There are obviously different user types. I'm your typical "Windows XP" kinda guy. I had to use Win Vista once and was annoyed by it. Win 7 may be better but at the moment I just do not care. I use XP/Office 2003 at work (10000+ employee company that will not roll out anything new anytime soon - and frankly, why would we?). And I use the same on my home computers because I don't have the time and patience to redo everything all the time. Stuff works and does what it's supposed to do. Good enough for me. That by the way is one of the reasons why I could never be convinced to go the Apple route. The constant reminders to "update" to a new version every other month on my iTunes stuff is bad enough. As long as my workflow or equipment doesn't change I don't need more colorful versions all the time.

Same with cameras. I'd still be shooting with my old non-AF film equipment if labs hadn't gone to hell around here. And don't get me wrong, I like shiny new toys, but some things just don't add any value and I was actually quite happy to have had analog cameras that were built to last and didn't need replacement every few years. I'd rather put the money towards other stuff (more lenses or a new bike or whatever).

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 43