Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D pricing... so much difference worldwide

« on: November 28, 2012, 12:40:54 PM »

That Swiss price appears to be a bargain as I know prices there traditionally are higher.  I have checked out that post on which-canon-camera.com and it appears that could be the way to go as Duty and Shipping are paid and a warranty is supplied which is a major concern when buying across borders.  Although some prices elsewhere are cheaper you might end up with a warranty that cannot be used easily in the event of a problem.

Indeed a low Swiss price there. Since Switzerland is outside EU, customs in my country would add, just like for shipments from USA and any other non-EU country, local VAT and customs fee, making the camera land above my local price.

But for that price difference, I could actually buy a round-trip air ticket to the Alps and carry it home myself.

2

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D pricing... so much difference worldwide

« on: November 28, 2012, 12:39:15 PM »

One reason is VAT.  In EU and most VAT countries, my understanding is that you have to advertise INCLUSIVE of VAT.  The US does not.

If you strip out the relevant VAT charge, you will be closer.  Now the fact that the US has lower sales tax or no sales tax at all (depending on where you live and how you buy), that is what each country/state votes for I suppose.

Now this is not the only one reason.  There are a myriad of others, like import duty, business tax and payroll taxes etc.  Take for instance the female employee at Canon USA. Canon has relatively no legal obligation towards her if she wanted to go on maternity leave, while the Scandanavian employee has a mandatory 2 years (if I recall correctly).  Regardless of who pays for that directly, the money has to come from somewhere.

Then last but not least is volumes and turnover.  Not a lot of countries beat the USA on this one.  Especially not us here in Canada where bodies are beginning to  come on par but not lenses.

Just for the protocol, the parental leave rules vary between the Scandinavian countries but in the largest one, it's a total of 15 paid months per child by which 2 can only be taken by the mother and 2 only by the father.

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D pricing... so much difference worldwide

« on: November 28, 2012, 08:39:27 AM »

Sweden right now: $2600, $2100+VAT

4

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses

« on: October 05, 2012, 04:15:43 PM »

These:

EF-S 15mm f/1.8 IS USM
EF-S 30mm f/1.8 IS USM
EF-S 40-150 f/2.8 IS USM

5

Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM on the Way? [CR1]

« on: October 02, 2012, 04:42:03 PM »

"I have one of these 18–200mm lenses and, honestly, I love mine dearly. Now, you will see some photographers in forums online saying that these lenses are basically beneath them, because they’re not as sharp as they could be, or they’re not as rugged as the more expensive lenses, etc. Don’t let that throw you. I don’t know a single photographer that actually has one of these that doesn’t love it, mostly because when it’s on your camera, you’re never going to say, “Oh, I missed that shot because I didn’t have the right lens,” because it does it all in one lens. As for quality, I have a 30x40" print of a photo I took with that lens while on vacation, framed, and hanging in my home. Everybody loves it, and it looks perfectly sharp and crisp all the way through."
Scott Kelby, Digital Photography 3

I have used the ef-s 18-200 at a few trips, and just took a look at the exif statistics from them. I have many shots at the wider angles, a bit fewer at the medium lengths, and almost always a peak a 200mm. So, if up to 300mm would be possible without sacrificing much of today's performance, then I'm interested. I have made 12"x12" photo books made entirely of 18-200 pictures, and are very happy with them.

If I during travel are dealing with bags with clothes, shopping bags, kids, snack, tickets, and are jumping on and off ferries and buses, I sure appreciate not having to carry and change lenses.

I may more often use higher grade lenses, but wouldn't hesitate to recommend the ef-s 18-200 for general traveling and to beginners.

6

Lenses / Re: Can crop sensor users expect something like the 35 f/1.8 in the near future?

« on: September 27, 2012, 07:22:09 PM »

The 28 f/1.8 have received very mixed reviews, from really questionable to highly recommended. Perhaps give it another chance?

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D actually doesn't need AFMA?

« on: September 26, 2012, 05:39:05 PM »

I don't have a 60D, but put a 200 f/2 or an 85 f/1.2 on there and shoot wide open and see if you still think there are no front/back focusing issues.  You might be lucky and have a perfectly matched body to your lenses, but probably not.

My 1DsM2 was perfect with all of my lenses as well, but that was probably because I couldn't AFMA it and I just didn't know how sharp it really could have been. 

Which is why I was surprised when I didn't find any examples of it.

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D actually doesn't need AFMA?

« on: September 26, 2012, 02:28:41 PM »

Ok, there seem to be a few cases then. I was almost starting to wonder if it's true that Canon had secretly implemented some AF micro auto adjust...

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Options for 60D upgrade/replacement?

« on: September 26, 2012, 02:26:26 PM »

Just a few thoughts. The questions for me were, is the 60D/7D IQ good enough for me, and what's the price premium for going FF. I have been quite happy with my pictures so far and I therefore couldn't justify the kit premium of over $4000:

60D/10-22/17-55/50-150os is under $4000
6D/16-35/24-70/70-200II is over $8000

Additionally, the crop set has the slight bonus of smaller bulk and lower weight.

However you already have some good FF lenses and seem to photograph quite much so I can imagine the premium much easier to accept.

Btw, that 50-150os would seem to address one of your concerns.

I see myself getting FF in some future when the prices have gone down. Still can't get over this feeling that FF is the "real" digital successor to film photo which has given me so many fine photos even with simple cameras. But again, with today's price levels it isn't currently for me. One thing that could theoretically throw this plan out is if crop technology with 70D/7Dii or future crop successors would make an IQ leap jump to where FF is today.

More to your question, when it comes to electronics I personally often appreciate later generations of things. So the 6D certainly sounds like an attractive choise, after all having the main feature I would want. Given your type of photographing, which specific features would you really miss with it and how often in real life would them make your pictures worse?

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 60D actually doesn't need AFMA?

« on: September 24, 2012, 07:08:55 PM »

Having recently upgraded to a 60D, I became curious about front/back focusing after reading numerous complaints that the 60D doesn't have auto focus micro adjustment.

I haven't noticed any focusing issues with any of my lenses, but I thought it might be noticeable if tested really carefully. While I am interested in having my equipment properly dialed in, I thought that accurate tests seemed tedious. Apparently one would need to test different focal lengths, have the right measuring targets and light conditions, and what have you.

So instead I started googling reviews and other's experiences, and found lots of people testifying both front and back auto focusing with their 50D's and 7D's combined with all sorts of lenses. But even after hours of searching, to my surprise I found zero reported front/back auto focus issues with the 60D!?

So, anyone here who has experienced front or back focusing with a 60D, with whichever lens, or at least read about any such case?

11

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS vs Canon 70-700 2.8 IS II for crop cameras

« on: August 30, 2012, 07:31:16 PM »

I have been lurking this board for some time but this thread had me register to reply.

Since you have been using both, do you think the difference in the ranges 50-150 vs 70-200 for crop (neglecting other differences) had practical effect in some way?

I am using a 60D with 10-22 / 17-55 / 60 macro / 18-200 IS / 50 1.8, and have been looking hard for a good stabilized 2.8 telezoom to complement the set for indoor sports, portraits, and general travel.

While the 70-200 2.8 IS is expensive, it hasn't been the price only which has held me away from that one - it has just as much been the zoom range. I have borrowed that lens from a friend but didn't totally like the long 70 mm starting point. I can imagine why 70-200 is a de facto standard short telezoom range: it's a great portrait range - on FF. It wasn't indoor sports season when I had that lens so I don't have experience of the range there. Otherwise, 50-150 seems to make much sense on a crop camera.

About the 50-150 OS not being FF compatible, for me that just sounds like a good thing. I have no plans to change to FF, and like the thought of having lenses designed for the type of camera I have and not carrying around unneccessary and unused glass volume.

The few reports I have found on the 50-150 OS indeed gives the impression of a premium grade lens. As much as I like the Canon brand and its lenses I already have, it looks like I have found the missing link I have been looking for in another brand. If Canon doesn't soon announce an EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS...