October 31, 2014, 06:05:14 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 - tapanit

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Announced
« on: July 02, 2013, 02:36:18 AM »
I think this spells the end of 7D sales, and the resale value of the 7D should also take a big hit.

The only thing the 70D gives up to the 7D is  1 fps (8 fps vs 7fps).

Burst length is also shorter (presumably mainly due to bigger file sizes).

It also loses pretty big in ergonomics: only one custom mode, much less customizable buttons, no joystick. Having used 7D and 60D side by side I find the latter much clumsier and slower to use.

If the image quality and high ISO performance is good. (which is the 7D's biggest weakness, so it isn't hard to beat it), it is game over for the 7d.
Could be. But it is missing enough of the high-end features (customizability, weather sealing) of the 7D it clearly leaves room for a 7D2.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Announced
« on: July 02, 2013, 02:27:43 AM »
360 degree mode dial. That'll please some people  ;)
Not me though. I like the stop in the dial in the 7D, as it makes it easier to use it blind (with eye in the viewfinder), mainly switching between the three custom modes. In particular moving to C3 is very easy, just move it as far as it goes.

Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII
« on: June 05, 2013, 09:53:36 AM »
Just as a point of information for those who have recently got a 6D or are considering one.  One significant difference from the 5D line in terms of operation is the zoom functionality.  I found it a little difficult at first, and still on occasion lapse into the other way of trying to magnify.  The 6D actually has a good, logical system after you make the mental switch.  To magnify, hit the zoom button and then you can use the scroll wheel near the shutter to zoom in and out.  It actually is smoother than button mashing, but it is very different from other bodies and takes some mental adjustment.
That's exactly like the way 5Dmk3 behaves, too. The difference isn't between 5D series and 6D but between earlier models vs. both 6D and 5Dmk3.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs. 600D with good lenses?
« on: May 27, 2013, 03:29:52 AM »
But generally people don't choose the 5DmkIII or 1DX because of financial limitations - and needing to keep sufficient funds for decent glass.
Yes. If money is no object, go with FF. But APS-C cameras today are also amazingly good today, and the price differential is substantial. I've been shooting with APS-C for a decade or so (when did 10D appear?), last four years with 7D, only getting my first FF (5D3) this year, and while it is clearly better, I have no regrets about not doing it earlier.

In particular, I like the EF-S 17-55 very much, and given your comments about your budget that's what I'd get, with whichever crop body (550D or newer) you can get cheapest - image quality won't change much (if you shoot raw - jpeg engines are better in newer ones). I'd prefer the 60D because of the top LCD and even more because I'm addicted to the back wheel, but for most people it doesn't matter so much. (The 7D is superior mainly if you shoot fast-moving subjects, like wildlife or sports.)

But what suits me might not suit you. Given a limited budget, with APS-C you can get more lenses (and accessories like tripod and flashes) that will cover wider range of situations, but image quality will not be quite as good as with FF. If you are one of those people who only want perfect pictures rather than wanting at least some kind of picture in wildly varying circumstances, you might be better off starting with FF; especially so if your main game is low light, because that's where FF advantage is biggest.

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????
« on: May 12, 2013, 11:13:49 PM »
Hi All,  If you look at all the other Canon "L" products you will notice all the prices are above $1000.00 or more.  The Canon EF 17-40mm f4L is priced at $839.00
The 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) is even cheaper ($629 at B&H). I believe it is also still selling very well, despite of the existence of the IS version.
Canon may want to make few more American dollars, add IS, and raise the price to $14-1500.00.  My two cents.
Canon certainly wants to make more dollars, but I don't think they would do that by replacing the 17-40/4L with something much more expensive - rather that'd be likely to benefit Sigma, Tamron & Tokina. If the 17-40 is to be discontinued, I'd expect a substitute without IS and only slightly higher price (under $1000). If they decide to make an IS version, which would be interesting, it's likely to be offered alongside the non-IS version, just like the 70-200 lenses are.

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Best Point & Shoot that will fit in a pocket?
« on: April 28, 2013, 10:57:09 PM »
I'm going to get a Ricoh GR as soon as it hits the shops:

Now I'm using Ricoh GRD 3, and the only complaint I have with it is poor high ISO performance of the small sensor. The new GR promises to fix that. An obvious alternative is Nikon Coolpix A, with very similar specs (a bit thicker, very different user interface - I love Ricoh's UI).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60d or t5i, your help?
« on: April 24, 2013, 05:18:18 AM »
My wife uses 650D (4Ti?) even though I offered her 60D as well (my backup body), simply because it's smaller and lighter. Your (and your wife's) mileage may vary, but I'd ask her handle both before making a decision.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear
« on: March 18, 2013, 11:54:24 AM »
"Lens Features: EF-S 18 – 55mm f/3.5 – 5.6 IS zoom lens"

"Lens Focal Length(s) 35mm equivalent 18 – 55mm (with included lens)"

If those are correct, it's a full-frame body.
Somehow I don't really think so, but if it were...

Lenses / Re: Is your midrange gear insured?
« on: February 18, 2013, 01:29:13 AM »
I insure nothing. Regardless of how high the risk is, I'm sure the insurance companies have figured it out better than I could, and if it's profitable for them, it can't be for me, in the long run.
On a grand scale, for long-term you're correct.  On a realistic scale though, it comes down to risk tolerance.
Of course. I wasn't arguing nobody should take insurance, only explaining why I don't. Mostly it comes down to mental risk tolerance, rather than financial - how you feel about uncertainty.

I also travel a lot and take chances with my gear. I've traveled in places where I was told "robbery is near  certainty", and I have once destroyed a DSLR by slipping on a rock while crossing a river (an L lens also got wet but was fine after cleaning). But no regrets: I've done the math, and if I'd consistently insured my photo gear over the 15 years (at the time) I'd been using SLRs it would've cost me way more than replacing that body did.
I am not an insurance company that can afford to "write off" the capital loss.  For an insurance company, it makes sense to insure me, I'm likely 100% profit.  But to me, the cost is worth it.
Then by all means pay it. For me, it isn't, so I don't.

Lenses / Re: Is your midrange gear insured?
« on: February 17, 2013, 11:46:59 PM »
But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay.
What are you talking about? ... You don't have to break half your gear for insurance to make sense, my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II alone costs around $ 2000 ... paying 2.5% (i.e. $50 a year) is peanuts compared to not having an insurance and having the lens stolen/lost ... would you rather pay $ 50 or $ 2000.
OK, I oversimplified the numbers, but really... would you rather pay $2000 now or $50/year forever? How about $500/month? If you preferred $50/month, congratulations, you've understood the time value of money.

Where exactly it breaks even depends on the interest rate etc, but nonetheless there is a monthly sum that's effectively the price of an "eternal loan" for $2000. For argument's sake let's say it's $200/month. Then your choice would be certain loss of $50/month with insurance, or possible loss of $200/month without. How likely would you have to be to destroy the camera for insurance to make sense?

And finally, do you think you can estimate that probability better than insurance companies?

Lenses / Re: Is your midrange gear insured?
« on: February 17, 2013, 01:00:58 AM »
Starting as of today I somehow feel that not insuring the stuff but carrying around the greater part of it most of the time is not exactly clever, on the other hand my budget is stretched as it is so I'm wondering if other people insure their "midrange" dslr gear against theft & damage or they consider the real world risk too low to pay for the insurance?
I insure nothing. Regardless of how high the risk is, I'm sure the insurance companies have figured it out better than I could, and if it's profitable for them, it can't be for me, in the long run.

Insurance makes financial sense only if there are secondary considerations, i.e., if the insurance money you'd get would in the event be worth more to you than the actual amount you get. Travel insurance makes sense because in some places not having one might mean you won't be admitted to a hospital (or get the emergency helicopter ride or whatever). Insuring your house makes sense if a fire could otherwise drive you bankrupt. But it never pays to insure cheap stuff.

As far as photo gear is concerned, if you're a professional, making your living out of photography, insurance can mean you can replace the gear faster and thus lose less work opportunities, and then it might pay off. Especially if the insurance is tax-deductible.

But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay. Compare the insurance premiums with what the bank would charge for a loan. If insurance company wants 2.5% of the value of the item and interest rate in the bank is 5%, you'd have to figure you break half of your gear for insurance to make sense.

Of course there again may be side-effects besides money. Maybe you know your wife wouldn't let you take a loan to replace the lens but would let you use the insurance money for it. Then insurance might again make sense.

Otherwise, you are paying for not having to do the math and for feeling a little less uncertain about the future. Maybe that feeling is worth the money to you. But it will cost you money, not save it.

Lenses / Re: African Safari Lens Help
« on: February 12, 2013, 03:08:25 PM »
Sounds like a good plan. Given that there're two of you, I'd consider getting an extra body

If you haven't noticed, he is already carrying 2 bodies, 7D and 5D3.
Yes. For two people. I think two people would need four bodies.

Lenses / Re: African Safari Lens Help
« on: February 12, 2013, 11:17:30 AM »
Thank you all for the great advice.  It really helps.  I am planning to leave the 17-55 and 35 home.  I will take the both bodies with the 24-105, 100-400, and 70-200 with converters, and the 300.  I will shoot the 5DIII with the 300 and put the 100-400 on the 7D for my son.  For early morning drives, I will probably swap out the 100-400 for the 70-200.
Sounds like a good plan. Given that there're two of you, I'd consider getting an extra body to keep the 24-105 in (or get a Rebel and take the 17-55 instead). There will be situations where you have the 300 mounted and something comes up close suddenly. And there will be situations where it's so dusty you don't want to change lenses. And a body may break and you'll have to fight with your son who gets to use the remaining one. Actually I'd even consider having two extra bodies, two for each of you.

(I've carried two crop bodies with 17-55 and 100-400 mounted and the combo works well. I regretted not having a 70-200/2.8 for low-light mornings and evenings, though, so you're better off there.)

There's nothing unprofessional about using a 60D, if it fits the need. Rather the contrary, it'd be unprofessional to use a more expensive tool than is needed. And the resale value of the 7D is likely to go down when 70D and/or 7D mark II are introduced, which seems likely to happen this year.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5