580EX II end of life?
- Lighting
- 1 Replies
I wouldn't worry, Canon will have parts for years, and third party repair services will have them longer.
Upvote
0
weekendshooter said:bdunbar79 said:Simba said:birdman said:Easy -- it would infuriate the 5d3 adopters. Plain and simple. I wasn't aware the d600 had the same sensor as the d4/d800/d3x. Even at 24Mp, it's well known that the d600 sensor is a newer (and better) sensor than the d3x.
Those of you who need all that the 5d2 or 5d3 offers will buy it. Besides, the 5d2 should ultimately still prove to be the better overall dslr than the 6d. I'm Nikon shooter now (having owned the 5d2) but miss much of Canon's system -- like the 35L, 100mm macro, etc. Canon will convince me to buy into their system again as well....it just may be years down the road. I know this is pointless -- but I wanted to state that their TELEPHOTO lens selection is simply unparalleled. This is why they OWN the sports photography market. As far as landscapes....they are still very good. It's a tough time for Canon right now, but i DO HOPE they pull out of this "slump", if you will.
Except for 70-200 f/4, both Canon and Nikon have very similar telephoto lenses. Nikon even has 200-400 that Canon does not have, and I have seen it many times in the fields. Why would you say Canon own the sport photography market?
Because Canon's 300 f/2.8L, 400 f/2.8L, etc. are way, way better than Nikon lenses. Overall, Canon has better sports lenses, and then of course there is the 1DX which is superior to any Nikon camera in existance.
...but they're not?? nikon has a 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 just like canon, and also have had a 200-400 for ages, whereas canon's is still nowhere to be seen. Everyone's superteles are very very good performers and nobody would be disappointed with either brand here.
The perception that Canon destroys Nikon for sports/wildlife stems from the early days of EOS, when Canon's quick jump to AF caught Nikon off guard. Since then both brands have more or less equalized and both perform at very high levels.
Also 1DX better than any nikon camera? Sure, if you don't count the D4 or D3S. Again, both brands offer superb performance once you get up to spending $6k on a body and $5-10k per lens.
awinphoto said:Drizzt321 said:Richard Lane said:Yes, good points! I'll also add that some weather-sealed lenses need filters to complete the weather sealing. Sand and dust are the worst!Drizzt321 said:Don't forget you also need a weather sealed lens to get full benefit of any weatherproofing.
The other thing you need to watch out for is if you'll be in an extremely dusty environment such as the desert. The dust can be very fine, and tends to get into everything no matter how sealed unless you provide additional protection.
I also like to protect from sea/salt spray if the ocean is rough.
Edited: I'll also add that I always make sure that I have the rain covers for my thinktank belt pouches (which are attached) and the rain covers for my camera bag/backpack to protect the rest of my equipment (don't ever take those out of your bag).
I'll add that the weather sealing isn't perfect, and with long term exposure to the dust & sand you can still get damage. For example, I was at Burning Man this year with my 5d3 and my 24-105 on basically the whole time. UV filter on the front, a bit of gaffers tape around the lens/body part. I thought I would be fine. Not so! Repair bill with 30% CPS discount came to a bit over $900.
So, if you're just going out hiking for an afternoon and don't plan on being in a whiteout dust storm, even if it's dusty, you'll almost certainly be fine. If you're going to be out on an alkaline dusty desert for a week, do something to seal up the vulnerable parts of your camera AND lens. Sea spray is probably just as bad, especially if it gets inside.
Holy crap. I knew a guy with a rebel who wanted to shoot burning man. Glad he didn't do it.
revup67 said:Can you be more specific? Are you referring to Shadow areas? If you're happy with the 7D then the 5D (IMHO) handles noise and resolution so much better
I've got some great bird shots, all cropped off the 5D III with a 400mm L 5.6 at my link if interested
http://www.flickr.com/revup67 (won't post photos to avoid clutter)
Lovely shot!anand said:Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, India.
I have been following him in all my three visits to the reserve. On my last visit, I video-graphed his mating session (with a 7D + 100-400 while on an elephant back).
Dylan777 said:param said:5D2 or 5D3? 5D3 certainly.
Will the 5D3 deliver better "picture quality" than the 60D? For the most part yes.Will buying all this gear help put an end to obsessive day dreaming? No.
My 2cents.... NOT most part. 5D III is better than 60D in everything, from chassis, IQ, AF, speed etc.
jbayston said:the trouble with these massive file sizes is that it shows the lenses to be less than perfect. i still think that a great lens and a reasonable size sensor would beat and average lens and massive sensor.
Diffraction is a property of lenses, not sensors as your title suggests. Therefore, a 60D does not have a diffraction limit.BruinBear said:So i was looking up diffraction limits and i noticed that on my crop body, 60D the diffraction limit is f/6.9.
What does this mean in practical terms? If a lens i have is sharpest between f/8-f/11 should i still keep the aperture greater than f/6.9 because of this limit?
Thanks guys



Sitting Elf said:I know the price will be high, and I'm budgeting for that.
