« on: May 31, 2013, 05:14:13 AM »
Would their cable relief spacer work, i.e.,
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.
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.
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 $839.00The 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.
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 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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Yes. For two people. I think two people would need four bodies.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.
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.
Why if it's in a 1 series style body couldn't an upcoming high MP body be called the 1Ds mk IV?I bet it won't be called anything "D". When all cameras are digital, the D is superfluous anyway, and I think time is about ripe to drop it. Maybe "EOS 1S" if it's 1-series like body with vertical handle, or 3S or 5S without. Or maybe some other letter. Given "EOS M" they might even drop the initial number altogether ("EOS S"), but I don't think that's very likely.