I'll consider buying one at under $500. Anything higher is grossly over priced.
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.
I've just taken delivery of a new Canon 7D (body only) for work. I've been recommended three lenses by the supplier who know what I'm going to be using the camera for:Of the Canon Cameras, only the T4i (so far) will autofocus for video and track motion. Its probably not going to work well for fast moving subjects, but far better than the 7D, which does not autofocus doing video ar all.
50mm F/1.2L prime lens
I'm going to be using it mostly for shooting videos in the mountains (in all weather types) in the UK, indoor/outdoor and under studio lights. I know that the lenses are just as important as the camera (or more important depending on what you have) but there seems to be a huge range in pricing for the range I've been recommended.
Unfortunately, the company I work for has a tight budget, but I don't want to get something cheaper and then find it's not going to get the best results.
I shoot a wide range of stuff, from a static shot of presenters in a podcast, to tracking someone skiing past me or with me skiing with them.
Could I ditch the prime lens and make do with the 70-200 and the 15-85?
Someone else recommended the Canon 50mm f1.8 which they said although a bit plasticy produced great results. Plus the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM as another option.
I haven't shot video with a DSLR before so please excuse my ignorance!
My budget is around £1500 (US$2300)
I do not know what the current cost is, since Canon has gone to 12 in wafers, but in their white paper http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3725428/Canon-CMOS-White-Paper of a few years ago, they state cost of up to $5,000 for a high resistivity 8 in wafer. It will make 200 APS-C, or 46 APS-H, or 20 FF. Each wafer typically has about 20 defects, so you could get 180 APS-C or 26 APS-H, or 0 FF in the worst case.Let us look at some numbers:
His analysis seems to be ignoring the facts. The cost of the sensor. Wafers used to make camera sensors are not cheap run of the mill wafers, and the yield from a given wafer generated 10-20 times the number of APS-C chips. This means the cost of a FF sensor is at least 10X the cost of a APS -C sensor. And, since the cost of parts used is subject to a percentage markup, that further increases the price of a FF sensor.
Just how much the cost to manufacture a FF sensor has dropped over the last few years is unknown, but they are not cheap. Switching from 8 in to 12 in wafers certainly helped along with single pass capable lithography equipment. But, you can always get 10-20 APS-C sensors for the cost of one FF sensor.
When 18 inch wafers hit the market in about 2018, that will further lower the price, but the ratio of APS-C to FF from a wafer will likely still be over 10:1
For 8 in wafer, the cost of a processed wafer is about $1000, throw in the micro lenses and AA fiter for extra $300 (my guestimate) So each wafer is $1300. My estimate is that there may be only 75 sites for the 8 inch wafer for APS-C sensor. Let us assume the yield for APS-C is 75 %, then we will have 56 sensor per wafer, $1300 per wafer, that will be $23 per sensor. There are 24 FF sensor site for 8 in wafer. Assuming the yield for FF is 25% (1/3 of the yield of APS-C, being pressimistic ). then each wafer will yield 6 FF sensor. that will be $210 per sensor.
So the difference between FF and APS-C is $193. I would call it about $200 is just a rough number in case my guestimate on the micro lens and AA filter is wrong. IF Canon have moved the sensor production to 12 in (300mm) wafer, the difference is even smaller. However, Canon white paper mention that there are 200 site of APS-C sensor in a 8 in wafer. That is totally wrong. Anybody can prove it by drawing it out on a peice of paper.
The FF is a lot more expensive the the APS-C body is due to the sales volume of FF is a lot lower than APS-C and the manufacturer try (and succeeded) to put FF on a pedestal and command a higher profit. 5DII was about $500 higher than 7D. That sounds about right.
I've tried searching the forum and didn't find anything about this, but I was wondering if Overstockdigital.com was a legit site.When you purchase a camera or lens made by Canon, your sales receipt from a Authorized Dealer will be required for a warranty. Otherwise, you may be totally out of luck. Warranties are void when bought from auction sites, liquidators, or other non authorized sellers.
They have the 24-105mm lens for $809 brand new..seems too good to be true.
Any buyers from this website?
First off, I am not trolling, I am not a professional ,Maybe its due to first time trolling posts insulting everyone on the forum with their professional opinion. The way to help the forum is to participate in the discussions, help new photographers, and avoid insulting users.
On another rumor site was a link to a blog that talked about the future of DSLRs being FF only:His analysis seems to be ignoring the facts. The cost of the sensor. Wafers used to make camera sensors are not cheap run of the mill wafers, and the yield from a given wafer generated 10-20 times the number of APS-C chips. This means the cost of a FF sensor is at least 10X the cost of a APS -C sensor. And, since the cost of parts used is subject to a percentage markup, that further increases the price of a FF sensor.
I'm not an aesthete, apart from having the view that form should follow function. From a purist technical point of view, the Hermes bag adds little value, and most probably LowePro would be able to provide something more functional. I have to admit, I see this as purely cashing in on the luxury goods market, in the same way that Mont Blanc has, rather than in providing a technically superior product which meets a specific functional requirement.
(Not that there is anything ethically wrong with tapping into the luxury goods/services market ... isn't that what many portrait photographers do?)
Nah, sorry. That doesn't impress me. I expected the making of the Leica, not some exterior leather work. I would take an M9-P even it was wrapped in newspaper because it is a great camera but certainly not because of the bag it is in.The type of people that drop $25K or 50K on one want a status symbol, and that bag is part of it.
I assume the Canon photography division, like any big consumer oriented corporation, has some sort of market research department. Does anyone know how Canon figures out what their potential customers want? Do they use surveys, focus groups, round table discussions, lurk on photography forums like this one? It's a complete mystery to me.All of the above, but a big input comes from some of the top professional photographers in the world who are given the Designation "Maker of Light" Nikon has a similar class of top photographers.
Rather than speculate, perhaps someone here has had enough contact with the Canon marketing people to offer some insight? If you know the answer, please state how you know.