Fox it for 500, sell it for 700. If the eagle value was less than the repair... then no... but it is still valuable acc should either be used it sold.
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.
A good pair of shoes. You won't find good photo opportunities if you can only think of your sore feet. Then you'll realize that its your neck that hurts so a good bag and strap it will be...
THE OTHER LENS IS A CANON 28-80MM $500 IS WITH THE GRIP OR WITH OUT?? HERE IS A LIST OF EVERYTHING I AM OFFERING.
Hi, I am not a profesional I got me a CANON 5D with a lot of extras but my wife just had a baby and have to many expenses I am trying to sell it any one knows if $900 us dls. is to much for all this in the picture???
For studio work? I just presume that pixel density will require a decrease in high iso performance... consequently... you are shooting in daylight or in studio.If I knew today that Canon would not ever produce a full frame high MP camera I would start dumping all my Canon equipment.
I'm in pretty much the same boat. Everything but the 400f5.6 and 7D2 (when it comes).
well, here we are talking about a possible EOS 7D successor, whatever it may be called.
A semi/pro DSLR capable of handling quite demanding use cases of "photographing fast moving subjects" ... from sports to wildlife of all sorts to birds of all sizes and in flight to planes in the air at airshows or in war zones and the like. Used by people who typically are not "entry level n00bs" but enthusiasts who know, whether they want or don't wanT/need video capabilities in that 7D successor.
If Canon would take the test and offer a well-specced stills-only 7D II @ e.g. 1999 and a video-enabled version 7D IIc priced anywhere between 2,299 to 2,599 depending on level of video capture offered ... I would expect 90% would be sold without video.
While it is not video as the differentiator, I see it very similar to the Nikon D800 vs. D800E offerings. A hell of a lot more regular D800 are sold than D800E, since only people really wanting and valueing the additional capability [more resolution at possible risk of moire in some situations] will pay up for the more expensive model.
The example sucks a bit since the D800E is so much more expensive than the D800 for only very little extra ... but I bet it would be pretty much the same, even if the pricing difference was only 100 bucks.
There should be no video-freeriding in stills-cameras / DSLRs. It is just not fair.
I upgraded from my xs to the 60D primarily because of it's video function. I didn't want to buy a video camera that cost $300 ...
For me... I can't have a single body in my house (only body in my house) that doesn't have video... because I do need it... not a ton... but I do need it to capture my 5 month old and my 125 month old. So if Canon were to drop video entirely... I would probably have to jump ship in 5 years when I out grow my mkiii... I know it isn't likely that they will drop it... but it is what it is.
This is exactly why I would like all DSLRs to come in a "basic" stills-only version without video capturing capability [hardware disabled, easy to do]. And for those who really want or "need" steills and video in one single device, should be offered a video-enabled version of those cameras ... of course at a surcharge. Maybe 10% more, maybe 20% more or any other reasonable number, that would still make "one dual-use camera" a better deal than "two single-use cameras" (or rather camera systems).
For every other product on earth the principle is clear: more features and/or more convenience = higher price.
We can order cars in a basic, "no frills version" or "fully loaded". "2 wheel drive" or "all-wheel drive". Stronger engine, more "extras" ... no problem. But ... not for free.
You want it ... you select it ... you pay for it ... you get it.
Only video-users clamor for their extra video-capability and single-device convenience in EVERY camera ... and they DEMAND it "FOR FREE".
Now, as that demands shifts to ever more advanced video capturing (4k, 8k, 60fps, 120fps, 1000fps?) ... it gets very evident, that video capability in DSLRs does NOT come for free, but does cause rather significant extra cost: extra R&D effort, more CPU-power, stronger hardware, larger and faster storage media, additional firmware and software ... all of this has to be designed, developed, tested, manufactured, implemented and serviced. It requires extra capital and extra labor from (highly skilled) humans, who certainly do not work "for free". But the extra feature only wanted by a minority of buyers should be "free of charge", "all inclusive". Paid for by the majority of stills idiots, who neither need nor want video capability in their stills cameras, but are not given a choice. Unlike cars, we only get our cameras "fully video loaded", and have to swallow the price for it.
This is the single reason, why the topic of "video-capable DSLRs" is "emotional". Because the way (all) camera makers are currently dealing with the market demand for "dual-use cameras" is very UNFAIR towards those wanting cameras that are fully optimized towards one single use scenario, that DSLRs were really designed for: capturing still images.
The argument will be less pronounced when the shift to mirrorless cameras has happended, since these cameras are video-enabled by their very design [for viewfinder&backscreen image] without mechanical mirrors blocking the lightpath. Nevertheless, implementing video CAPTURE and video OUTPUT causes extra cost and is an extra feature and extra convenience. It should therfore come as a choice for those who want or need it AND ARE WILLING TO PAY at least a modest surcharge for it.
Thank you for the kind words... I try to use logic, but some many subjects are very emotionally charged....
As I've said before, I shoot with a 60D. The first time I shot with a borrowed 7D I knew that I bought the wrong camera and have been waiting (somewhat impatiently) for the 7D2 to come out. I did not feel like the 7D was enough of an upgrade to warrant my getting it, despite the fact that it is what I should have bought in the first place...
For example, video is an emotionally charged topic. Personally, I seldom use it, but would have thought long and hard about getting a camera without it. There are many who feel that Canon should just make "pure" cameras and leave video out... but at what cost? Yes, it does take away some R+D resources from stills and yes, it does increase the complexity of cameras, but what happens if Canon leaves it out? The great buying masses would go elsewhere because rightly or wrongly, they think they need the feature, and without it Canon's sales would plummet, economies of scale would be lost, there would be far less R+D money, and the company would implode.... a small price to pay (actually it's savings) for features I could live without, but in reality, I find nice to have.
How hard is it to achieve 4k video? I was watching a digrev tv episode where a guy had to shoot a film using a Barbie camera... and gee said that his galaxy note could do 4k... it might not have been a note, but something similar. Certainly we have the pixels for it and then some... so what is the bottle neck in the slr world... oh... and I absolutely would not about at 4k for home videos. I feel I am assuming previous hard drive space just using 30 fps 1080p footage of my daughter sucking at basketball.
I don't think its much, I mean look at the Go Pro Hero 3/3+ Black edition...
It supports 4K, 2.7K, 1440p 1080/60p...
Only problem is its tiny and no interchageable lenses.... oh wait... no... this guy made it possible to change lenses: http://www.back-bone.ca/
Its still tiny though! Annoyingly tiny.
The GoPro 3+ isn't a fair comparison, since it only offers usable (30p or higher) video at 2.7K and lower resolutions. It's also worth noting that the 1DX can do 18MP stills at 14fps, comparable to the GoPro's true 4K setting. The GoPro is impressive because of its 1080/60p and 720/120p modes - that's more reasonable to compare. Canon will probably reserve 4K for its significantly more expensive models, meaning the C series, and instead work on more marketable modes like 1080/60 or 720/120, since most consumers don't have a 4K display anyway, but would like more slow-motion capabilities. The 7D replacement would be a good place to add those capabilities, since we're expecting dual processors and hence significantly more computing power than the 70D.
Here is the question, can Canon afford to keep 4K off their future models?
I mean, ok... lets ask another question... is 4K a fad or something that is sustainable until at least 8K comes along?
If 4K is a fad... then no problem... lets move on.
If 4K is not a fad and every consumer will embrace it, can something like the 7DII afford to not have that feature? Given that 4K was introduced recently (within the last year or two), and supposing everyone will go out and buy a 4K TV, Canon will have to wait 4-5 years before they introduce it in a 7DIII (or whatever other name - Mark II).
1080/60p is also cool but 120p is much cooler. So if they are boasting about video capabilities, I would really expect something as good or even better than the 1D-C but not so much that its out-shinning it.Maybe they are just using marketing hype to get free advertising. Maybe what they are saying is,
As for the microphone, right now an external mic isn't really an option for me because I need to shoot with a extremely light and compact setup. Plus it wouldn't even fit in my current camera backpack. But I would like to upgrade to one in the future when that option becomes more viable. Thanks for your input!