Personally I found that my pre existing(UK) home insurance covered me for Â£2000 worth of photographic equipment.
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.
Agreed. With a normal or tele zoom lens, f/2.8 is useful both for the additional light (compared to other zooms), and for the additional OOF blur for subject isolation. With a UWA zoom, f/2.8 is really only useful for the additional light. You're right about the museum shot, and if I'd had my tripod along for the walk, I'd have used it (and an ISO lower than 3200!). But also for indoor shots with people, the extra stop compared to f/4 helps for subject motion, a problem that a tripod and a long exposure would not solve. One other minor point is that all lenses benefit in IQ to some degree by stopping down, and the 'sweet spot' isn't usually a fixed aperture, but rather a given number of stops down from wide open. So, a wider starting point means more light and possibly less diffraction effect when you hit the sweet spot. For example, the 16-35/2.8 II hits its sweet spot at f/4-f/5.6, while the 17-40/4 hits its sweet spot (such as it is) at f/5.6-f/8 (and f/8 on 18 MP APS-C is pushing into diffraction territory.
I think brand switching must be rare, so I don't think they take that into account. The cost of my lenses by far outweigh the cost of my camera bodies. Selling all lenses and buying the corresponding Nikon lenses would cost quite a lot. Those camera manufacturers are good at looking in people, evil as they are :-). It would require several years of radically poor camera bodies from Canon and very much better from Nikon to get me to switch.
I also look at lenses when choosing brand (I think body importance is somewhat overrated in relation to lenses, at least for us still life photographers), and for my interests Canon has a better lineup. The TS-E 24mm II and 70-200/2.8 II are two of my favourites, and Nikon's versions are fine but not quite as good. The quality of the version III teleconverters are also impressing. Canon has a 17mm TS-E, which Nikon does not have at all.
And by the way I just got a 5Dmk2 so for me personally the 5Dmk3 could come late 2012 :-).
28 1.4 usm or 30 1.4 usm below 500 euros would be nice.
for me it could be ef-s, I do not mind.
I doubt we'll see the 5D Mark III tomorrow or up until February. The focus is on the 1D X at the moment, they can't take that away.
But also, what I do know is that using a CPL on 15mm on APS-C (24mm on FF), you really can notice the blue banding in the sky. Using a CPL on 12mm on FF would make a very very uneven sky...
I love my 16-35 f2.8 II i almost never use it wide open though I typically shoot f8 to f11 with it anyway and it is razor sharp bright clear colours all over even on ff. awesome lens IMO
The full frame camera market is in an interesting state of flux at the moment. As I see it, Canon have five options for the 5D MkII replacement:
1) Keep the major specifications the same as the 5D MkII and use the 18MP unit from the 1D X.
Iâ€™m not sure that you could sell such a camera on the basis of better high ISO performance alone; thus Canon would have to reduce the price. This could work if:
a) they can realise production synergies with the 1D X and other models to reduce the cost of making the camera (thus maintaining their profit margin)
b) they can realise a price point where they can sell enough extra units to compensate for the lower profit margin.
2) Improve the major specifications over the 5D MkII and use the 18MP unit from the 1D X. Differentiate from the 1D X based upon frame rate/buffer size, body size and viewfinder (+ probably a few other â€˜proâ€™ orientated features such as Ethernet).
i.e. the D700 strategy. There are two dangers here:
i) Cannibalising 1D X sales in the same way that the D700 did to sales of the D3.
ii) Alienating the section of the market of 5D MkII buyers who value resolution over build quality, AF and shooting speed.
3) Take the 5D MkII and put a newly developed (for example) 36MP sensor in it.
Problem: Nikon takes a D700 and puts a 36MP sensor in it; Sony builds a 36MP A9X based on their A77â€™s features: the 5D MkIII looks like the poor relation.
4) Create a (for example) 36MP small body camera with improved AF, build quality and reasonable (4-6fps) shooting speed but keep the price near that of the 5D MkII.
a) Youâ€™ve basically just built a 1D Xs and are only charging 5d MkII money for it!
b) â€œIâ€™ve just bought a 1D X and now I feel ripped offâ€
5) Create a 36-40MP body and improve some of the specifications over the 5D MkII, compromising others.
a) It may be OK against the Sony, but might still look weak against the Nikon (so the price must be lower than the latter?).
b) People would always be speculating that the 1D Xs is on the way.
If this looks like an awkward situation for Canon, bear in mind that Nikon are in the same boat. In some ways it may be worse for them, as there would be uproar if they dropped any of the major specifications of the D700 for the D800.
Sonyâ€™s strategy will only work if they can persuade full frame users of the benefits of the SLT concept and thereâ€™s not much evidence so far that theyâ€™ve persuaded the APS-C market yet. Otherwise, they risk simply being the third choice brand all over again.
Partially agree. I too like the idea of keeping the next 7D at or about the same megapixels and focusing on improved image quality. In fact, I think that may be an excellent way to differentiate the 7D from the 60D and Rebels (they get the high density sensors and the 7D keeps the same megapixels, but with improved IQ -- very similar to what people expect with 1DX and 5DIII.
I disagree though, that it would put the 7D in competition with the 1DX. Rather, I see them as being complementary. Buy the 1DX for full-on full-frame, tank-like durability and highest quality images, buy the 7D to add extra reach when you need it.
Instead, I wonder if it would cause the 7D to erode 5D sales, especially if the 5D goes up to 30+ megapixels.
Don't know. Just speculating.
Same for the 7DII - no one's talking much about that one, but it will probably not improve too much on the 7D. My guess would be more MP (21-24), maybe the articulating display, same basic AF, Digic V (likely x2), new metering sensor (which will contribute to AF, so that will be the AF improvement), and that's likely it.
Instead, let's compare real cameras - 5DII to 7D. I think Fleetie summed up the main advantages and disadvantages. For me, the 1.3-stop better ISO noise performance is the key - on the 7D, ISO 1600 is barely tolerable, on the 5DII, ISO 3200 is decent.
I think the biggest clue is the announcement is scheduled in Hollywood... i.e. very video orientated...