October 01, 2014, 02:16:03 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 - unfocused

Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 141
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: whats up with 5d2 used pricing?
« on: January 12, 2013, 02:23:46 PM »
as a 450D user I'm on the hunt for a good deal on a 5d2 or save for 6D or 5d3   

however I always see people selling bodies with 5-25K clicks attempting to sell the 5d2 for 1500 or even more, because they spent 2 grand on it a year ago. 

I dont think I'd pay more than 1400 with body and kit lens.   Is everyone crazy hoping we don't know what the market looks like or just hoping to find a sap.

First off -- the people who sell them can't sell them for more than people will pay. It is the buyers that determine the price, not the sellers. When I want to sell something like a piece of camera gear, I look on e-bay to see how to price it.  If I were to do that for a 5DII, I would see that they are typically closing between $1200 and $1600 depending on condition etc.  $1400 -- $1500 looks like the going rate right now.  I sold mine for $1350 to a friend and to arrive at the price I watched 10 e-bay auctions and took the average.  Then I subtracted the fees that I would have to pay and that was my cash price to her.

+1. I was going to say almost exactly the same thing. These days with eBay it is very easy to determine the market value of almost anything. Just watch for a week or so and see what the selling prices are. On almost any used product, whether it is cameras or anything else, there tends to be very little variation in price, unless there is something unusual about a particular item.

Canon General / Re: Canon Experience Stores Coming Soon [CR3]
« on: January 11, 2013, 01:29:27 PM »
I wonder what percentage of their sales will be Canon branded t-shirts, coffee mugs, backpacks and other souvenirs.

Go in, play with a lens for 15 minutes. Leave looking like a walking billboard for Canon.

I have three Canon CP-E4s and one super cheap "Shoot" brand clone.

Main difference is that the battery compartment door for the clone is a much tighter fit. I have to really push it down to get it to fit. Not a major deal but kind of a pain. The construction on the clone is definitely cheaper overall.

I have two big concerns with the clone, but only time will tell if they are legitimate.

1) I don't have 100% confidence it is always providing power to the strobe. There is really no way to know for sure I guess except by directly comparing the recycle and battery life of the two and I haven't yet done that. It seems to work fine, but really, how do you know?

2) Durability. The weak link in all these packs is the power cord. If it breaks or shorts out, you've got nothing. That's something that will become apparent only over time. I suppose someone might take a knife to the cords to see if the CP-E4 uses better wiring. But then you have a dead battery pack so I'm not going to do that. The only other way to find out is to use them for a while and see if the cords break.

I know this isn't much help. But here is my opinion: If you are using it for paying work, buy the Canon since it's not that expensive – $150 at Adorama. If you are a hobbyist and the battery pack's failure is not going to ruin a job for you, go ahead and get a clone, try it and see what you think. Don't buy multiples of either one until you've bought one and tested it out and decided for yourself.

Lenses / Re: Need an affordable 300mm
« on: January 10, 2013, 07:54:15 PM »
Okay, I've rented the 300 f4 along with a 1.4 extender, rented the 400 f5.6, rented and later bought the 100-400 L and also bought the 70-300 L.

Advantages and disadvantages to all and it becomes a matter of personal choice.

For all-around use, I would say the 70-300 "L" hands down. Very sharp, very fast (focusing), reasonably compact and superb IS. This is the lens I always carry with me when going out and think I might need a telephoto.

The 300 f4 was a nice lens, but I didn't like the lack of zoom and with the extender I liked the lack of zoom even less.

The 400 f5.6 is sharp and fairly light, but I did not like the lack of IS.

I use the 100-400 "L" for birds and other wildlife mostly. It is a very good lens, but it is just a little too heavy and clunky in comparison to the 70-300 "L" for a general purpose telephoto zoom.

If I had to have only one, it would be the 70-300 "L." With the recent price drops this lens is now just "way overpriced" whereas it was originally "ridiculously overpriced." :)


That is just so wrong.

Thats quite POV dependent, isn't it? Going by the feature list you're right; but as a photographer: getting more use/value from SBs then from their Canon counterparts when using Canon cameras leaves a funny taste...

 No, saying Canon hung 580EX II owners out to dry is not a fact, every feature of the 580EX II is fully supported by the 600EX-RT, I really don't see how anybody could class that as hung out to dry.

 Whereas you believing you get more value out of an SBwhatever with SU4 than a 550EX for around a $100 that has 95% of the functionality of the 580EX II is a personal POV dependent comment that would need to be evaluated on a per user level.

 Canon are not innocents in this though, I well remember when they changed lens mount from FD to EF, then we were hung out to dry, but it all worked out for the best, sometimes harsh love works and I am sure Canon spent a lot of time discussing that major decision. There is no doubt in my mind, now with the benefit of hindsight, that Canon did the right thing then. I get the feeling they have done the same thing with the inability to use the optical and radio at the same time with the new RT system.

I suppose we have to agree to disagree. My point is simply this. Canon chose to release half of a product. They released a transmitter and no receiver. There is absolutely no technical reason why they needed to do that. Indeed, Yongnuo, Pocket Wizard, etc. etc., all produce transmitters and receivers or transceivers that combine both functions.

Canon, on the other hand, chose not to release a receiver, only a transmitter.

This is not, in any way, comparable to complaining because Canon products are too expensive or that they failed to custom build a camera to one's specific desires. This was a calculated judgment call on their part not to offer a complete product to make their previous top-of-the-line product compatible with a new model.

Yes, I understand that the new strobe can be used with IR control. I understand that the same features of the 580EXII exist that existed before they released the 600.

Actually, referencing the change from the FD lens mount is a good comparison to make my point. Canon has acknowledged that they only changed the lens mount because they simply could not continue to use the same mount and keep current with technology. They did it reluctantly.

In this case, there is no technological reason they can not produce a receiver that would work with older model strobes. They just simply decided to sell only half of a product. And yes, that does indeed leave a bad taste in the mouth.

How about sell your PWs and 430, then buy 2 600s. 

Sometimes the first and simplest answer is the best.

I have railed on Canon in other threads for their decision to abandon 580EXII owners and I still think it was a shortsighted and ill-advised decision, but despite that frustration, I can't advise anyone with just one strobe to buy either another 430EX or a 580EXII.

Since you don't have a big investment in speedliites, you are better off just biting the bullet and switching to the new 600 RT. To do it right, you will probably have to quickly invest in a ST-E3-RT so you can easily and cordlessly fire both strobes off camera.

As one who owns multiple 580EX II's this isn't an economical solution for me. Instead I've opted for the Youngnuo 622-C transceivers. But, you are probably better off cutting your small losses and switching to the 600 RT.

...Pros: future-proof, best Canon has to offer in terms of features;...

Just one comment: one might have assumed that buying Canon's top-of-the-line speedlite (580EX II) would also have been "future proof" since it was hard to imagine Canon just throwing those buyers into the ditch. We were obviously wrong.

Canon made a conscious decision with the ST-E3-RT to release only half of a product (a transmitter without a receiver). They could have easily accommodated their customers by releasing a full product (transmitter and receiver) but didn't.  The moral of the story: no matter what you buy, it is only "future proof" if Canon wants it to be "future proof."

Intrigued? Yes.

Love the look of the X20. I'll wait to see what the reviews say. The X10 was said to have a fairly pathetic viewfinder. Supposedly, they've improved that. I've toyed with the X10 and the G1X. Neither has convinced me, but Fuji may be getting closer with the X20.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 08, 2013, 10:33:48 AM »
I agree a good post but when new things are released no matter what they are you can expect to pay list.  Why do people have to be the first to own some new release?   The depreciation they see over the subsequent months is the price for wanting to be part of that club.  If you know full well that months later it will be cheaper why do it?

More to the point: Why do it and then complain about it?

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N
« on: January 07, 2013, 11:57:46 AM »
Well, Canon does their market research, so while I'm scratching my head, I would guess it's probably going to sell pretty well.

I am having a hard time imagining that pushing on a lens is a good way to snap the shutter, though.

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces The PowerShot N
« on: January 07, 2013, 10:37:04 AM »
Finally, a camera that takes pictures upside down.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 06, 2013, 02:56:32 PM »
Some of these comparisons and smart a$$ comments about depreciation are ridiculous.  I don't think the OP should have started an entire thread dedicated to this and been so dramatic about it, but I can sympathize with his feelings on the 5D3 and 5D3 only.  You all act like the drop is completely normal but name one other piece of Canon gear that dropped that much that fast?

Of course depreciation is to be expected, but I think the 5D3's drop was different.   The price of the 5D Mark II dropped maybe $200 the first 2 YEARS it was out.  And if the 5D3 price pattern is the norm then why is the 1DX not under $5k now?  It's the same price it was at it's release...I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to believe their electronics won't ever depreciate, but most aren't complaining about the depreciation itself, just how quickly it happened...I don't care either way, I paid almost $3800 for mine and still think it's a great camera.  But if you had told me I could save $1600 if I buy a refurb in 7 months, or $800 waiting 5 months, I would have considered waiting.  But now I know for the future, lesson learned.


I don't disagree with any of this. But, the problem with the original post is that it is based on the assumption that somehow Canon is the source of  the price drop.

The price has dropped because the market dictates prices and Canon has been unable to prevent retailers from lowering the price of  the 5DIII to reflect the demand in the competitive marketplace. I repeat once more, the only price drop from Canon has been the relatively common reduction from a "rebate," which in the case of the 5DIII amounts to $200 in the U.S. All other price cuts have been driven by retailers willing to accept smaller profits in return for higher sales.

Canon may be complacent in this, but they are not the driving force – the marketplace is. I am quite certain that if Canon had its way, the 5DIII would remain at its introductory price. But, in a competitive, capitalistic market, they don't get to determine that – we as consumers do.

Consumers have been voting with their feet and retailers are responding. I sympathize with individuals who are dismayed by the apparent price drops, but it is wrong to attribute market forces to some bizarre conspiracy theory.

Mr Axilrod's post raises a very interesting point: is this part of a new trend or just a one time error on Canon's part? I agree, we would all be wise not to rush to purchase any new Canon products that seem to be overpriced for the market, but instead wait to see where the marketplace sets the "true" price.

(As an aside, I have to tip my hat to Mr. Radiating. It seems the joke may have been on us. His on-line persona – that of a fabulously wealthy economic analyst who in his spare time consults with Canon and provides their engineering department with solutions to problems that they themselves have been unable to solve – has got to be one of the most creative uses of trolling I've ever seen.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 04, 2013, 03:55:26 PM »
For those of you who like to flame posts instead of to try and understand; this is exactly what the OP is talking about :

Roger Cicala from LensRentals.com has posted his first resolution tests of the Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS.

Part of Roger’s Conclusion

“Obviously this hasn’t told us a thing about autofocus accuracy, bokeh, or a dozen other things that have to be considered when choosing a lens. Just like you, I’ll be waiting for more complete reviews to tell us about that.

On the basis of this information, though, I’m . . . well, I don’t know what I am. This is a good lens, but I at the price point I’d probably prefer the f/2.8 of the Tamron VC to the new Canon’s f/4. The macro feature is nice and will certainly pull some people towards the Canon.”

Roger also notes that there was quite a bit of variation at 70mm between the 22 copies they tested.

Actually, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Consumers have their choice of five very similar lenses available in a range of prices. Canon is not only competing with other lens makers for our dollars, they are competing with themselves. We get to choose based on needs and affordability. That is a win for consumers.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 04, 2013, 12:26:32 PM »
As I said before... We're beating a dead horse.

Beating? I think this poor equine has been pulverized into dust.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 04, 2013, 12:24:14 PM »
Many of us who bought 5D MK III at 3499 needed that camera ... we do not care if Canon decides to drop the price after a few months, so many others can also buy them. From what I can understand in your post is that you could have waited for the price to drop and did not really need the camera when you purchased it ... but if you really needed the 5D MK III and bought it at $3499, you have nothing to crib about. Canon are smarter than you think, they sold 5D MK III for $3499 because they knew that there was a demand and sure enough they were right. The official price drop for 5D MK III is only $500 ... you cannot blame Canon if some grey market outlets or limited special deals are selling it for a lot less.
Moral of the story: next time do not buy things when you don't need them. But if you do need something and paid a premium for being one of the first few to get it, then do not crib.

One of the best posts on this thread.

Just one quibble however: the official price drop for the 5DIII is not $500. At least not in the U.S. I think Canon would argue there has been no official price drop. However, given that they have offered a never-ending rebate of $200, I think one could legitimately say the "official" price drop is $200.

All other price drops have been driven by individual retailers, who are reacting to the market.

The reality (which I cannot understand how the OP, who claims to have some knowledge of economics, cannot understand) is that Canon is at the mercy of the marketplace. If the 5DIII has fallen in price since its introduction, it is not because of Canon, it is because the market has determined that the fair price is different than what Canon set as its target price.

This is one of the the things that real economists refer to when they talk of the magic of the marketplace. In a capitalistic world, Canon gets to ask for any price they choose, but buyers then get to tell them "yes" or "no."  It appears that a significant number of buyers have said "no" and retailers (the front-line soldiers of capitalism) have responded with price cuts. I can't imagine why anyone, outside of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists, would object.

Software & Accessories / Re: Oddest kit purchase?
« on: January 03, 2013, 09:16:54 PM »
This could become a great "tips" thread.

I've bought plastic clamps from Lowes for hanging backdrops, etc. Cost a fraction of those sold in photo stores.

I carry a lint roller in my lighting bag to get cat fur, etc., off black backdrops.

Bought a cheap rolling suitcase from Wal-Mart to keep strobes in (yes, I have a problem)

In the old days I used electrical tape to tape two rear lens caps together back to back (very handy for keeping two small primes in the same slot in the camera bag and you never lose the caps, because they are always attached to at least one lens.)

In the category of "you know you've really lost it" – I asked my daughters to buy me a small pop-up deer blind that I put in the backyard next to the bird feeder so I can get closer to the birds.

Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 141