Messages

31

EOS Bodies / Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon

« on: September 24, 2012, 11:14:54 AM »

All of these lens comparisons forgot one thing...

Nikon 14-24/2.8 $1749
Canon nothing.

Again, I do not see that lens as part of the argument when the OP started the discussion about value and the 6D.  This lens is for a D800 vs 5DIII argument

32

EOS Bodies / Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon

« on: September 21, 2012, 04:24:49 PM »

Do you really need something like 70-200/4 to pair with 24-120/4 VR? That's only 80mm extra. Just don't be fooled by cheaper and/or better Nikon bodies. Their lenses are more expensive.

Their lenses are NOT more expensive.

Just go check the prices...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM - $300 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED

And that is mostly a listing of lenses what I think go with a 5DIII or 1DX based on price (if you can afford those you can afford the bodies).  For a new entrant into the FF realm - to whom I think the 6D is aimed at - I think the following will be more representative (based on BH prices excl rebates and US model). I am leaving out 3rd party alternatives as it is available in both mounts.

Canon                                   Nikon                                 
17-40L   - $740                      None                                 
24-105L - $970 ($800 kit)       24-120 - $1,300   
70-200LF4 nonIS - $670          none                           
70-200LF4 IS - $1,350             none                   
100-400 - $1,700                   80-400 - $1,680
28mm 1.8 - $510                    28 1.8G - $700
50mm 1.4 - $400                    50mm 1.4G - $440
300mm F4 IS - $1,350           300mm F4 IS - $1,370 (No VR)
430EXII - $300                      SB-700 - $330

One can debate the ability of each item individually, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Canon as a whole is cheaper and Nikon's lenses ARE MORE EXPENSIVE

33

EOS Bodies / Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon

« on: September 21, 2012, 12:20:52 PM »

I understand the OP's point.  The new 6D kit gives you L glass for $2900 at launch.  Getting the D600 with their 24-120 VR, whether or not it is as good as the L, will set you back $3400 (BH prices). So that is $500 right there.

I see the 6D mainly for the F4 target market due to price.  Canon can help you at wide zoom (17-40) normal zoom (24-105) and tele zoom (70-200/100-400/70-300) tele prime 300mm IS or 400mm F5.6 quite nicely in L fashion.

With Nikon you would have to go 3rd party for most to get the price fit (except for their 24-120 (more expensive) and 80-400 (same price)). Nothing wrong with Third Party but worth considerating

Even a speedlite EX430II is much cheaper than a Nikon equivalent. Also, my experience show that the used market is also far more extensive for Canon than Nikon (OEM or Thrid Party).

So for overall value - one needs lenses with a camera regardless how gear heavy you want to be - I think the Canon 6D offers the best value. But I stand corrected.

34

EOS Bodies / Re: Who really is the target demographic for the 6D?

« on: September 20, 2012, 06:45:14 PM »

Two things have been said repeatedly on this forum:

1 - Its all about the glass (said over and over over the years)
2 - And recently, On paper the D800 and D600 are better than the Canon equivalent, so they will advise new purchasers to buy the Nikon - cheaper/better.  Especially for the D600 were APS-C users will be "switching" systems in any case.

Well for me, I will advise anyone who asks to to go with the Canon - as it is the best system to get Point No 1 cheaply.  Here we have the D600 and 6D competing, and for $200 more you can get a constant aperture L lens with a better range than the kit D600.  Also, I have found that the use market for Canon glass is so much better choice wise.  From Canon Primes, L Lenses to 3rd Party zooms, take your pick. Want a macro, search for 2 weeks you will find one. Want a specific zoom, same thing.

So if the demographic is entry level FF for Serious photographers (for whom glass matters), I think the 6D and Canon system is spot on.

35

EOS Bodies / Re: Who really is the target demographic for the 6D?

« on: September 18, 2012, 09:33:47 PM »

It for someone like me.  Want to explore FF.  Do not like 4 year old body (5DII).  5DIII to expensive for my abilities.  Haven't upgraded bodies for 3 years, thus the OVF, MP count, FPS and AF is better than what I currently have.

36

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Announces the Canon EOS 6D DSLR

« on: September 17, 2012, 07:08:00 PM »

So I wished for a FF Rebel and I guess I just about got it. (I even thought they will call it a 70D)

Am I disappointed about the lack of a Pop-up flash and 7D like AF, yes very much so.  Would I have liked a little more fps, yes, but again it is 1fps faster than my current camera (T1i)

Do I care about the view finder (97%), fixed screen and no-touch screen, not at all because it is better than/I do not have it on my current Rebel. Hell from what I understand just being a pentaprism instead of a pentamirror is all the upgrade I need.

Is the GPS and WiFi an unexpected bonus, for sure. And I do not even have to buy new memory cards.

Does the D600 look better on paper, yes.  Can I switch??? My 28 F1.8, 50 F1.4 100 F2.8L macro and 70-200 F4 and 430EXII says no.  Does this dissapoint me, no.  All my lenses were bought used (exept for the 50mm), Canon is far more popular were I live and this make it much easier for me to keep getting what I need at far lower than MSRP through kijiji and craigslist.

This camera is not for those wanting a cheap 5DIII, nor those upgrading at every release.  Its for hobbyists like me who can't extract the capabilities of the 6D to its fullest, let alone the incremental difference to the D600.

I am excited and will get one - as soon the first price drops come along.

37

Lenses / Re: If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???

« on: August 14, 2012, 01:05:34 PM »

When I travel I normally take only three
Tokina 11-16 F2.8
Sigma 17-50 F2.8
Canon 70-200 F4

My wife has a Panasonic GF 3 with 20mm F1.7 that is very handy in the evenings.  If she doesn't take that, I would swap the Tokina for the Canon 50 F1.4

38

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced

« on: July 24, 2012, 01:24:03 PM »

Body looks fine

18-55 lens to big to fit into MY opinion of what a mirrorless camera should be.

Now if canon can come up with a retractible lens ala panasonic - then this might be an option.  The 22mm looks good

39

Landscape / Re: Post your best pictures of fireworks

« on: July 22, 2012, 11:22:31 PM »

Mile High 'Murica by @!ex, on Flickr


Diamonds of Independence by @!ex, on Flickr

@lex, this is almost unfair so good it is.  Can you please add the exif for learning purposes
Again, awesome pictures!

40

EOS Bodies / Re: Hands-on Video of the Canon EOS M (Italy)

« on: July 22, 2012, 11:19:14 PM »

The camera size (body only) is not too bad. But with that lens and flash system, how is that smaller and more convenient than the 650D?

Now I am not to disappointed with getting my wife the GF3 (Canon had me worried for a while).
Her setup:
- 14-42 Power Zoom
- 20mm F1.7
- and of course, the GF3 has a pop-up flash

Everything goes into the handbag. She really appreciate the additional IQ and flexibility over a P&S.  The P&S never went into her pocket, so this is size wise the same thing.

Now the EOS M, with that lens and flash just seem to big. Missing the point of MY definition of mirrorless

41

EOS Bodies / Re: New, cheaper, Canon FF DSLR... 70D?

« on: July 21, 2012, 07:14:05 PM »

The problem with making the xxD line full frame is that many of the users of that line are consumers who do not know the diference between FF and crop anyway. They also probably wouldn't pnotice the difference anyway. Many also might not understand the differences between EF & EF-S lenses. They would also be discouraged by the more expensive price of a FF kit lens.

It would be a marketing disaster for many upgraders from the 60D, who have been ingorantly (I mean that in a good way... ignorance is bliss!) using it with nothing other than the 18-55 & 55-250 twin lens kit they bought with it. Imagine all the people who would be left wondering why their lenses no longer work. Heck, given the quality of the sales staff in many of the stores in my area, I wonder if the salespeople would even know the difference when recommending lenses!

Also keep in mind that Canon has a very well thought out price-tier (oh look, this one's only $100 more, maybe I'll buy this one instead!) Making the xxD series FF would take out one of the most important steps in that tier (ie the first step away from the consumer-auto-mode-oriented Rebels) and would prevent many people from even considering anything other than the 650D.

This is a good point, although I am a proponent of making the xxD FF because I just do not see the differentiation to the 650D anymore. But a do a 60D crop guy upgrade to a 70D or a 7D? The way canon is going, a 70 D will only be a replacement, not an upgrade??

42

EOS Bodies / Re: New, cheaper, Canon FF DSLR... 70D?

« on: July 21, 2012, 10:55:24 AM »

I have been saying this since February (when I started to want FF but the new 5D was to expensive)

With the Mirrorless going crop - that will give Canon 5 crops.

So graduate the 70D to FF - hell you can achieve this by slotting a 5DIII sensor and Digic 5 into the current 60D body and save on some tooling.

As for the single digit thing.  Keep that designation for those who earn money (i.e. Pro/Semi Pro) from photography regardless of sensor size.  Marketing wise - single digit is were you will find; Weather Sealing, Speed, Top AF, dual CF etc.  Make the 7DII a true cheap mini 1D that will amaze those semi-pro birders and sport photographers.

43

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]

« on: July 16, 2012, 03:18:49 PM »

I'm very excited by the news, happy that it's CR2 and not just a wild rumor.

- I'm excited about a plastic body.  I'm a traveler and hiker, and every gram counts.
- Same price as 5D2, but it'll have vastly better AF, a newer sensor, and it'll have digic5.
- If the price starts at $2k at launch, it'll only go downward from there on

I wonder if the new lens will be 28-135/3.5-5.6 mk2 STM?

 This might just be the camera that'll have me switch from crop to FF.  But then I'll have to buy new UWA and fisheye lenses 

Another enthusiastic target buyer. Perhaps Canon have got it right.

I agreed.

FF sensor + 19points AF = enough for enthusiastic shooter to jump from crop to FF.

awww hell, the 5d2 AF was so terrible I would have gotten the 5d3 even if it only had the 19 pt 7d AF system... the 61pt system now is just gravy to me.  Horses for courses, a 5d2 shooter not wanting to shell out $3500 for the 5d3, and get improved AF again, more high ISO, better sensor and technology...  all for under $2000 (supposedly)... to me that's a no-brainer, but what do I know.

I am also one of those target buyers very excited about this.

I was just wondering, back in Feb 2012 when I wrote a post about the cost of FF and suggested that there is space on the market for a 70D like body (60D + Digic 5), 7D AF and a FF sensor, many commented that you couldn't just drop that 7D AF in over a FF sensor.  It seems that this is exactly what will happen.  So do they need to change anything or not?

44

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]

« on: July 16, 2012, 03:07:52 PM »

The 5D MkIII sensor, 7D like autofocus, and a pop-up flash (probably with flash control) and it's not an upgrade over the MkII for the same price?. 

if canon would be the only camera maker it sure looks like a good deal.
compared to the rumored D600... well... no.

and you have to understand the different needs.

for me the 5D MK3 sensor has no real advantage.
i shot below ISO 1600 99% of the time.

i shoot landscape, macro and home studio studio stuff.
85% of the time i use the center AF point.

i shot no video.

so why should people like me update to a 5D MK3 or this new FF camera?

from a company point of view it sure makes sense.
but we are individuals here, with individual needs.

Ever thought that it might not be for people like you but people like me with Rebels and 60D's to upgrade to.
And I can just assume - there is a lot of us

45

EOS Bodies / Re: Would you buy a new full frame camera for $1999 with the 5D Mark III sensor?

« on: July 16, 2012, 02:59:29 PM »

Yes the price might be a bit more than the D600's rumour.  So lets wait and see (Maybe it does include the new kit lens)

Plastic = lighter
Body seems smaller
Pop up flash
Mark III sensor
Better AF than Mark II

All PLUSSES in my book - so this seems to be what I am looking for: A Rebel FF.

To me - the only dissapointment is 4 FPS, would have liked 5 >  had to find fault with one thing because God forbid Canon making a perfect cam