January 30, 2015, 01:40:18 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: Another 6D v 5D3 body battle...
« on: September 05, 2013, 03:36:45 AM »
I had the same choice and went for the 5D3. For me the decisive factor was AF, not for sports but for nature photography, where effective tracking with multiple AF points helps a lot. Another factor was interface similarity with 7D (earlier I'd found 60D UI very hard to get used to, and the 6D is similar) - and unlike some commentators, I've quite happily used 5D3 and 7D side-by-side, usually with wide-angle lens in the 5D3 and a tele in the 7D.  Yes, 5D3 IQ is better, but in good light 7D is qood enough for me - and in focal-length limited situations with long lenses the crop factor helps.

So: If you've used and like the multi-point AF modes of 7D for tracking moving objects, you'll be be better off with the 5D3. If you can get along with center-point AF only and don't care about differences in ergonomics, go with the 6D.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]
« on: August 05, 2013, 06:39:57 AM »
Once you owned 5D III, your 7D will most likely sitting in the bag & collecting dust - or end up on CL.
Mine doesn't. It has been demoted to "second body" position though, but I use two bodies often enough, and the 7D complements the 5D3 quite well. In particular I like it that their ergonomics are pretty similar - much more so than between 7D and 60D I used before. And sometimes 7D *is* better, in particular it has longer burst length, and in good light the extra reach is sometimes actually useful (well, just about enough to offset the generally better IQ from 5D3), so that a shorter lens (24-70, say) in the 5D3 and a long one (100-400) in the 7D make a good combination.

I would still be interested in 7D mk2 if it had sufficiently better IQ, especially with high(ish) ISOs, that it would produce visibly better pictures than the 5D3 in focal-length-limited situations. Better AF, higher fps and longer bursts (with raw) would also be appreciated. Everything else, like WiFi and GPS, would be icing on the cake - nice but not important.

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D or wait for 7D MK II?
« on: July 02, 2013, 03:06:44 AM »
As a 7D owner, am curious for input on if I should wait for a 7D Mk II or just go for the 70D. The 70D does have some interesting features, especially the highly touted AF system, but I worry if I upgrade now the 7D Mk II may be far superior with the same AF system, dual DiGiC 5s, and probably even higher FPS shooting (as a sports photographer that's important!). While I can wait, I can't wait forever. Probably til the end of the year? Anyone know/think they know when the 7D Mk II will come out?? Should I wait?
I will wait - but then I've already bought a 5D3 and delegated the 7D as the 2nd body (moving up from 7D+60D), and one key feature where 7D is better is burst length, and 70D is worse in that respect. I'm also addicted to the custom modes, and the 70D only has one, like the 60D (5D3 and 7D can be customized similarly enough to make switching between them a breeze).

Given 70D specs and price, I expect there will be a 7D2, with 7D-level customization, higher fps and bigger buffer, better AF (with optical viewfinder that is, probably same in live view), weather sealing (but maybe no flexible LCD or touch screen), maybe dual card slots. I hope it will *not* have integrated vertical handle, though; if it does I'll probably skip it.

As for when, who knows. The 70D should be available in August; I would be surprised if the 7D2 is announced before that, but I guess it just might be timed to hit Christmas market. But I wouldn't bet on it, could be well into next year as well.

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.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5