RadioPath, thank you for the explanation. I guess I've never ordered anything from abroad, so I was not aware of the additional costs like VAT and import duties.
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.
Since release it has dropped ~100€/month, currently it's stuck below the €1700 barrier, but I expect it to move downwards again since imho this full frame 60d is still overpriced: http://geizhals.de/canon-eos-6d-slr-gehaeuse-8035b022-a838323.html
If you are buying in Canada with Canadian $ you are probably price neutral by buying locally.
Same for Germany, but the offer shows how much potential there still is for the 6d to drop in price - and imho Canon has designed it to be produced cheaper than the successor (shutter & body vs. 5d2).
Can you elaborate, please? I mean, if you were to take a hypothetical 25.6 MP FF sensor and use scissors to trim it by a factor of 1.6 in each dimension, you'd end up with a 10 MP APS-C sensor. Using the same lens, there should be no difference how it resolves before and after trimming, right?
P-Mpix isn't a measure of resolution, although resolution is a contributing factor. Resolution ≠ sharpness. A true measure of spatial resolution involves a physical distance. Usual units are line pairs / mm (LP/mm). For a spatially normalized measure in LP/mm, the higher density sensor will outresolve the lower density sensor.
However, that's a per-unit basis - and that's not how we look at images. MTF50, a commonly used measure of sharpness, is reported in line pairs / picture height (LP/PH). In that case, the greater 'height' of a FF sensor means higher values. You can see that on photozone.de - when you compare a lens on FF vs. APS-C, the MTF50 values will be higher for the 5DII tests than the 50D tests, despite the higher pixel density of the 50D. This isn't just a numerical phenomenon - take a look at the TDP comparison of two 18 MP sensors, the 1D X vs. the 7D (same lens, the 200/2L IS at f/4). The 1D X is producing a noticeably sharper image.
P-Mpix isn't exactly measuring sharpness, either. It's basically a measure derived from subjective quality factor (SQF), which simply put is an MTF measurement that's adjusted to match human perception (the psychophysical basis is that humans percieve some spatial frequencies better than others, and viewing distance is relevant to perception of sharpness, too).
That difference you see in TDP's ISO 12233 crops can be measured by SQF, and that's basically what P-Mpix is telling you. For example, the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II that delivers 22 P-Mpix on the 5DIII achieves only 14 P-Mpix on the 7D. In fact, the 300mm f/4L IS at $1400 delivers better perceived sharpness on the 5DIII than the $7000 supertele lens on the 7D.
Aomething is not right with these numbers.
For example, Canon 40D's 10 MP sensor would be 25.6 MP, if enlarged to FF size (10 * 1.6 * 1.6). Similarly, 7D's-FF equivalent sensor would contain 46 MP.
Yet, 7D shows markedly better resolution than 40D in combination with the same lenses. In fact, with quite a few lenses, not only the very best ones.
So, if these systems benefit from increased pixel density from 25.6 to 46 MP FF sensor equivalent, how can the best lenses be the limiting factor at 21-22 MP? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Pixel density isn't the only factor - sensor size matters.
According to DxOMark, the best prime and best zoom from each are:
Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II on 5DIII - 22 P-Mpix
Nikon 85mm f/1.4G on D800 - 22 P-Mpix
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on 5DIII - 21 P-Mpix
Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR on D800 - 21 P-Mpix
So, by DxO's criteria and definition, Canon's best prime and zoom lens are basically not limiting system resolution (within a 1 MP margin of error). However, Nikon's best prime and zoom on the D800 are resulting in the 'loss' of 14-15 MP....resulting in a perceived sharpness of even Nikon's best lenses on the D800 as no better than Canon's best lenses.
Interestingly, while the D800 appears to be 'too much' for Nikon lenses in that the lenses are clearly limiting overall system resolution, we don't know from these data if we're at the limit of the Canon lenses.
You need a good working SYSTEM to take a decent picture.... the sensor is only one part of that system so why is everyone so fixated on it?
My point exactly. Camera performance matters. Sensor performance is part of that, but short of people hyperbolizing to the point of NONSENsical absurdity, it's not the only part.
I suspect everyone is fixated on it for two reasons. First, in general, it's easy to measure sensor performance and plot the data or reduce the data to a single 'score'. Second, in particular on CR forums, it's an area where Canon is not leading, and some people like to create a stir by beating on that horse (we sometimes call them trolls...).
...IF u don't like Canon strategy or product's there is an alternative solutions & it is good as Canon just no need to stick with it & complain how bad they are.I can complain all I want... and I will give my opinion, and my opinion of your opinion. And I will stick with Canon and the products that make sense and are relatively well priced. This is not it, and I will, as I see fit, complain about it wherever I want!
If you don't want to read my complaints, don't read them, but don't tell me not to complain.
Apparently you are a complainer & you like the useless debates, Complain whatever you want about Canon, me, my comments with yourself but please stop filling the forums with you moaning posts.
Not all Canon users. But again, while their Measurements are useful, their Scores are not, because they are biased (only considering base ISO for some parameters) and not fully disclosed (weighted formulae but what weightings?).
Bill Claff's data are also quite good (and mirror DxO in many regards, but give some additional insights - worth a look if you haven't seen them.
well, first of all, unhappy customers vote with their wallets, not with their dreams of social equality among photographers.
and yes, for those who have been around long enough to remember, Canon DID change the FD lens mount to the present EF mount, and a great many photographers, including some that I know, were impacted. one even left the business (rather accelerated his retirement) because of the large investment and because he knew his old equipment could not keep up with the competition for very long. But I didn't see any letters to the UN demanding that Canon preserve a long term relationship with him or make EF backwards compatible with FD.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you keep bringing up terms like "gouging" and "long term relationship", as if Canon has some social obligation. They don't. Canon doesn't have a relationship with anyone except their suppliers and key product champions, sponsored photographers, or whatever they need to accomplish their profitability goals. the rest of us make investment versus risk choices. nothing prevents one from taking advantage of the relatively strong used market prices and switch brands. you can shift the risk to someone else.
and, if by experience you worry that canon will increase the price of puppy chow, then you can choose not to continue investing in their proprietary system and take the risk of investing in someone else's proprietary system. I'm not saying thats easy for all, but it is what it is.
There's no question that in order to remain profitable, Canon has to listen, but I bet their #1 corporate objective is profit, not listening, nor is it arguing about the morality of a 10% fluctuation in price.
Again, they are a business, not a photographers' aid society. They have to recover their investment and make a profit, the sooner the better. Grossing 15% more on a hot product is hardly the definition of greed. What you call "greed" is what others call smart business. The penalty of doing otherwise is pretty severe. Compare Canon, Apple, etc. vs. Bronica, Contax, Kodak, Polaroid, etc.
I don't think any of has any factual basis to state what the price of the 5DIII "should" have been. We can only guess. Sure, camera technology matures, but there is constant research and development. How much did the new AF system cost? Or the new sensor? Or the new mirror system? We don't have a clue. Should it automatically be cheaper because it's 4 years later? Not necessarily. The cost of manufacture 3 months ago vs. now is not really relevant when there are several years worth of investment to recover, not to mention the costs of investing in products yet to be developed.
It's not surprising for a technology company to lower prices over time. It's the same if you're buying this year's newest model television vs. last year's about to be discontinued model television. Certainly last year's will be discounted vs. the newest.
I don't see how people "overpay" due to a lack of alternatives. There are so many alternatives, including the alternative of not buying. On the one hand, who is so desperately in need of a product that doesn't exist yet that they have no alternative but to "overpay" when it finally comes into existence? On the other hand, if a new product offers such compelling advantages to a photographer that it is worth an immediate purchase, then why not pay the introductory price? Did a photographer overpay for the 5DIII by $500, or did having the camera earlier reward him by at least that much? That's a calculation for each photographer to make, based on their needs and budget.
The improvements of the 5DIII vs. the 5DII are very substantial. Canon delivered on a long list of improvement requests, resulting in a highly desirable product.
Those who paid the early adopter price weren't milked by anyone. Those who bought it early made the calculation that it was worth paying extra to have the camera 8 months earlier rather than 8 months earlier. If the camera didn't deliver good value for them at $3,500, they would not have bought it.
You can call it "grossly overpriced" but the camera market seems to be very competitive, with plenty of alternatives at many price levels. If photographers are willing to pay a higher price for a particular camera, then it is worth that price to them at that time.
Canon is a business, not a photographers' aid society, so they're allowed to make a big profit if they deliver something highly desirable to their customers. Sure, people have a right to complaint about anyone's pricing. But with the number of the businesses making a big profit in the world, such complaining can become a full-time occupation.
I thought it was a great camera at $3,500 and bought it for that price. The D800 didn't come into consideration for various reasons (a great camera no doubt, but not exactly what I need). The 5DIII upgraded just about everything in the 5DII, so I expected it to be priced higher than the 5DII which was introduced at $2,700. At $2,500-$3,000, the 5DIII is very nicely priced.
It seems that every new product gets complaints about pricing. Everyone wants every product to be both improved in quality and cheaper. Sometimes that's possible, but sometimes it isn't. And the price of most electronics drops over time.