« on: February 06, 2013, 01:19:39 AM »
I'm tired of all these people who insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video. You know, because stills photography is for old timers. Go buy a C100, educate yourself, and try to do some quality work, if you really need to do video.I read all the posts in this thread but nobody said "stills photography is for old timers", neither did I see anyone "insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video" ... so relax, no need to get tired with unnecessary imaginations.
Just because we want to do a bit of video and feel IS would be an advantage to us, does not mean we have to buy C100, that's pretty foolish advise. Besides for those who don't need IS there is already an excelent 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens ... for those who would like IS, let us live in peace without giving us "holier than thou" comments like "educate yourself and try to do some quality work" ... I am sure everyone here is educated and trying to do quality work, thank you!
You're sure everyone here is educated? I'm not...I meant, educate yourself formally...as in, go to film school. Learn how to shoot a "film" the right way, and not by following fads and trends of the wedding market. And stop telling me something is foolish just because you think it costs too much. Your competition may very well eventually budget for a C100, or similar (if they haven't already)...and steal your customers, so you might as well work toward getting one yourself. If you already own several DSLR bodies, a C100 would only take the place of two. Oh, and I'm perfectly relaxed...are you? Sheesh. Like I said, I'm tired of people who have the DSLR video mindset, thinking they can dictate how those who shoot primarily stills, should think. Control freak much?
I'm not against a 24-70 IS. But I am against one if it is meant primarily as a video lens...I doubt it would sell very well. I actually enjoy lenses with IS, for shooting stills. If the IS is working properly and used properly, it can add sharpness to a picture regardless of the shutter speed...fast or slow...in my opinion. It's just that there are varying levels of IS quality, depending on the individual lens, and focal length. I agree that a lens like the 24-70, at least at the wide end...could have problems with IS switched on, as was stated above.
You don't sound relaxed at all. Anyways, DSLRs are always going to be primarily for stills. I have no idea where you got the idea where people say that the future of DSLR usage is video. What I do believe is that it's a natural progression for both the market and people who are starting out and/or transitioning from stills to video because of the more appealing starting price point, which I may add, hasn't affected the pricing of DSLRs themselves. No one has to buy a C100 to prove that they're a pro just like no one has to buy a medium format camera to prove they're above DSLR users. People are going to steal customers, but not because of the quality of their gear, and more so because of the quality of their work. It's not like back in the day when we had less gear to choose from, requiring higher budgets. We are in modern times, we should have a modern mindset. They won't release an EF 24-70 2.8 IS for just video use. I am in no way scared that they will. Even if they do, it will be up in the cinema lenses line and cost a horrendous amount of money.