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.
How come Canon, and a lot of big companies never explain or answer any questions. Why make a new sensor for the 6D when everyone was hoping for the same 5DIII sensor? Why limit the video compression? etc. etc..
Are there good reasons or are they just protecting other lines and/or money, as everyone keeps on guessing.
McDonalds answered this one:
why don't the hamburgers you get, look like the photos?
Behind the scenes at a McDonald's photo shoot
Here we go again. It seems like no matter how many times we shoot this zombie idea in the head, it just keeps coming back. One more try:
APS-C far outsells full frame. Full frame remains a niche market in the DSLR world, not the dominant format.
There is a substantial cost barrier to entry with even the "bargain" full frame cameras now being announced. To purchase the lowest cost full frame camera with any lens that can take advantage of the larger format requires an investment of about $2,500 minimum. That is cost prohibitive not only for casual photographers, but for many, if not most, enthusiasts as well.
The APS-C genie is out of the bottle and it's unlikely either Canon or Nikon can put it back in. Serious APS-C enthusiasts prefer the format for a variety of reasons, probably the biggest being the extra reach the format offers for telephoto lenses.
The success of both the 7D and the 60D demonstrates that there is a solid market for higher end APS-C cameras. Neither Canon nor Nikon can afford to leave these customers on the table.
With the current state of technology, alternatives remain inferior. That includes both in-camera cropping of a larger sensor and mirrorless EVFs. While this may change in the future, the future isn't here yet.
The truth is, not even Canon and Nikon know where the market is headed. As responsible, well-managed companies, they are trying to position themselves to take advantage of whatever direction the market goes, but they can't predict or direct the market over any long term.
What they do know is that the bottom has fallen out of the formerly lucrative point and shoot market, thanks to cell phone competition. They know that enthusiasts are a coveted segment because they have disposable income and are willing to spend it. So, all of the companies are trying to offer a variety of products that will appeal to those highly desired consumers who are willing to part with substantial amounts of money for their hobby.
Too many people are confusing the decision to offer a lower cost full frame body with a guaranteed demand for the product. The truth is, camera manufacturers think there is a demand based on market research, but they won't really know that for a year or two, after they have seen and studied the actual results. In the meantime, they are certainly not going to sacrifice a proven segment of the market. Such an irresponsible gamble with shareholders' money carries risks that no conscientious executive would take.
Hello darkcloud154,
Welcome to the forums.
If you want to shoot sports and wildlife today, get the 7D today. I am using it and I am very pleased by the performance. It just got a firmware update and the camera can hold out until 2013 (I believe longer as well)
The CF card is a stayer since the performance is very very good. Especially for sports. Look at the Lexar 1000x
So if you want to shoot today, go and get it
I upgraded from a Rebel series to a 7D in 2011 and would recommend it right away. There are 2 problems with waiting for a newer model: (1) we don't know when it will be announced or ready to ship (could be early-2013 or late-2013 assuming there is one next year), and (2) the price will be a lot higher than the current 7D (could be as much as 1000 more).
Add to this that used 7D prices are only a couple of hundred below full retail and then the real question that you need to ask yourself is: "Should I buy a 7D today with a view to trading it in 1-year's time at a cost to me of 4 to 5 bucks a week in anticipated depreciation?"
Most people would find that a much easier question to answer.
7 images shot with 7D + EF-S 17-85 at 24mm, ISO 100, f/16. Shutter speed varied in one-stop steps from -3 to +3 EV
Goal was to get natural-looking result with details in the shadows on the right while keeping brightly lit sandstone shoreline from getting blown out
Actually, if shooting in Adobe RGB matters, you've already dumbed it down a lot, because that means you're shooting JPG. If you're shooting RAW, color space is irrelevant - you can set it later.You are right, I set mine to Adobe RGB but use raw, so it really made no difference. I use Lightroom 4 which has a prophoto gamut that is even wider.
I can do a soft proofing to my printer / paper profile and bring the colors into gamut as required.
You know, this has me thinking (a dangerous pasttime, I know...). I've often made the argument that the in-camera jpg settings do matter if you shoot RAW, indirectly, because the in-camera settings are applied to the JPG preview image that's reviewed on the LCD and used to generate the histograms. So, to the extent that you make exposure decisions based on the preview image, histograms, or blinking highlight alert, those JPG settings matter.
I wonder...what is the gamut of the camera's LCD, would sRGB vs. Adobe RGB make a difference in color channel saturation, a difference in the histogram or highlight alert calls, etc.?
A 400mm F/5.6L IS is also missing.