dlleno said:
Yes, has been.
Before the D7000 showed consumers what they can have for $1200.
Also, at a time when only the 1-series cameras had an advanced AF system and other advanced features.
Things are different now.
Upvote
0
Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??
- Thread starter nicku
- Start date
- Status
Yes, has been.
Before the D7000 showed consumers what they can have for $1200.
Also, at a time when only the 1-series cameras had an advanced AF system and other advanced features.
Things are different now.
7D and D7000 are certainly compettors at similar price points, and there is no question that advanced functionalities are dipping into lower price ranges. Personally I don't see room for all three (rebel, xxD and 7D) and the market may well be compressing that space, who knows.
interesting shows to watch, to be sure. But the 7D is still very succesful though, even with the D7000 in the picture. there are advantages to each one (one stop shutter speed advantage on the 7D for example, and higher fps) that can be important depending on your needs.
to propell the 7D into the very serious amateur and/or pro market would require taking on some of the pro-series features, like weather sealing, high-count shutter, grip, etc. perhaps you're suggesting that Canon 70D should compete with D7000 and if that happens, AND if 1.3x goes away, then the king of the crop bodies may not be either of these at all it may be something betweeen "1" and "7" but not a "5"!
interesting shows to watch, to be sure. But the 7D is still very succesful though, even with the D7000 in the picture. there are advantages to each one (one stop shutter speed advantage on the 7D for example, and higher fps) that can be important depending on your needs.
to propell the 7D into the very serious amateur and/or pro market would require taking on some of the pro-series features, like weather sealing, high-count shutter, grip, etc. perhaps you're suggesting that Canon 70D should compete with D7000 and if that happens, AND if 1.3x goes away, then the king of the crop bodies may not be either of these at all it may be something betweeen "1" and "7" but not a "5"!
Upvote
0
X
!Xabbu
Guest
dlleno said:
I don't think that a built-in grip will be seen in the 7D II. First of all there are many people who don't want to have a brick for a camera. Second, you can buy the grip as additional equipment.
And to your comment re serious amateur/pro market - the 5D III has less weather sealing than the 1D series, no grip and still is a serious amateur/ pro market camera. I definitely know many serious amateurs who are very happy with their 7D (all of these decisions are also based on price and that's where the 7D trumps all FF cameras).
Upvote
0
What constitutes a 'pro' body? Is it the price tag, feature set, or construction? I shoo on a 7d currently, and I am an emerging pro. While shooting an event a couple months ago a a club, some idiot bumped into me and spilled more than half a beer on my camera, like right on the LCD screen. I did quickly dry it out - the only issue i saw after that was a little stickyness on the buttons. So, while I have not done a leave it out in the rain test, I do think that is a good statement of weather sealing on the 7D...
Again though, what makes a body 'pro'? Is it the specs, the construction, the features, the AF, or is it simply he price tag? Is it FF vs crop? How does APS-H 1.3 crop fit in then? I guess that means the 1dmk4 isn't a pro body. Does it have o have a built in grip to be pro? That means the 5 series is out too.
I just feel that people throw that term 'pro' level around all too often, when really the definition of 'pro' level is murky and hidden - I feel that its more of a combination of the camera and the user. If I were the 15 year old son of some rich guy and said, daddy i want to take pictures, and daddy buys me a 1dx, does that make me pro? Should I give up now because obviously my photos will suck cause my 7D is not pro? Just kind of sick of that term being thrown around willy nilly with no real definition of what that actually means.
Again though, what makes a body 'pro'? Is it the specs, the construction, the features, the AF, or is it simply he price tag? Is it FF vs crop? How does APS-H 1.3 crop fit in then? I guess that means the 1dmk4 isn't a pro body. Does it have o have a built in grip to be pro? That means the 5 series is out too.
I just feel that people throw that term 'pro' level around all too often, when really the definition of 'pro' level is murky and hidden - I feel that its more of a combination of the camera and the user. If I were the 15 year old son of some rich guy and said, daddy i want to take pictures, and daddy buys me a 1dx, does that make me pro? Should I give up now because obviously my photos will suck cause my 7D is not pro? Just kind of sick of that term being thrown around willy nilly with no real definition of what that actually means.
Upvote
0
Chuck Alaimo said:
I don't think an adequate definition is that complicated: tech gear is "pro" if you are paying a premium for reliability because you'd be loosing more money if your gear broke down in a business situation. Thus an amateur does not need this "pro" quality because non-"pro" gear can get the same results.
You are right about saying that specs are neither "pro" or not - it's just a matter of money vs. iq or keeper rate, but that doesn't say anything about if the end result can be sold or not.
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
Marsu42 said:
I think of pro as being able to shoot in all weathers - so waterproofed. I think of pro as being able to produce commercial grade images (that may be different according to intended use - ie photojournalism and landscape)
I think the phrase 'tack sharp' as being over used
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
I agree, but this doesn't make one body any more 'pro' than any other. Examples - lets say instead of 1 7d I had 2 of them ---paying the premium of having 2 bodies just in case one breaks down which would mean losing money. Would that also include membership with something like CPS? Regular maintenance? If you have all or most of that running, would that be more of a pro system than owning a single 1 series body (take it even further, 1 series body but no L glass)...
That gets into the other side of it, what about paring a technically non-pro body with L glass?
I guess what it boils down to is levels. If pro is just about the money, then if you making under 30K from photography, I guess that means your an amateur? Or does it only mean your an amateur if you don't have a 1 series body?
Another way to look at it too, from that place of " tech gear is "pro" if you are paying a premium for reliability because you'd be loosing more money if your gear broke down in a business situation. Thus an amateur does not need this "pro" quality because non-"pro" gear can get the same results." As a business you need to interpret your own finances - you aren't pro for long if your income from photography can't cover the cost of the equipment. If your earning under 30K, then yeah, a 1 series body is a significant portion of your yearly income...
I think we're on the same page, I just feel liket here are lots of amateurs here that see it as $$$ amount. A 7D isn't pro because its under $1500---- which to my mind boils down to bragging rights...and more likely, no actual soldi tangible results. If my 7D images can mop the floor with an amateur using a 1 series body, then the bragging rights boils down to my camera costs this much, its awesome because it costs this much...
Upvote
0
Chuck Alaimo said:
Agreed - I just came up with the one definition for "pro" lenses or bodies that does make sense to me. That doesn't mean every pro photog (ie. who earns money with this) should get "pro" gear if he cannot sustain the costs.
And there's another aspect I forgot: Your clients have to think your "pro", too. If you're in non-IT management in Germany, people expect you to own expensive suits and a bigger a BMW or Mercedes. Likewise, I see many wedding photogs state on their websites that they have "pro" lenses and bodies to make clients feel confident. And the other day an event photog wrote here that his colleague don't take anyone for serious that doesn't have red ring gear, and you might even get thrown out as an crazy amateur that will mess up the show.
Upvote
0
Not an expert by any means but with regard to Consumer, Amateur, and Professional hasn't Canon already defined that for us by offering the three classes, Rebel, XXD, & XD lines?
I am not saying there is no overlap, there obviously is, and there always will be but generally speaking with regards to Canon DSLR line I think that it is pretty clear how the manufacturer breaks it down.
Now I think the real confusion is on how the individual uses their gear, such as if someone uses a T3i for performing paid work, weddings, portraits etc, he or she is obviously in it to make money and regardless of skill or gear by the classic definition since they're making money they are defined as a "Pro".
If one was to have 15K worth of 1D X body and "L" lens yet never did photography for money then they would fit the definition of either Consumer or Amateur depending on their aspirations I suppose.
So in my opinion there is “professional” level gear (rather easy to define) and then there is the category of the user/photographer (much more subjective to define).
Lastly there is the SKILL of the photographer, this catagory for me seems pretty easy to define as well. If an individual is capable of setting or preparing for and capturing what they set out to get with regard to the composition, exposure etc.. then they are, in my mind, demonstrating a professional skill level regardless of the gear they own/use. Someone with professional level skills can most likely create better images with lower level gear than a consumer and amateur with the best gear.
So from my perspective I would break it down like this for Canon DSLR bodies:
Pro 1D series
5D series
7D
Amateur 60D series
Consumer Rebel series
Application:
Makes a living from photography Pro
Sometimes sells prints but does not do it full time Amateur
Never sells anything all for personal satisfaction/interest Consumer
Skill level:
Creates the image he or she setout to create almost always Pro
Creates image he or she intended at least half the time Amateur
Creates decent images but most often relies on the
equipment and very basic knowledge to get the picture
without a lot of work Consumer
Please don't be to harsh, these are JUST MY OPINIONS and I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings its just how I percevie things.
I am not saying there is no overlap, there obviously is, and there always will be but generally speaking with regards to Canon DSLR line I think that it is pretty clear how the manufacturer breaks it down.
Now I think the real confusion is on how the individual uses their gear, such as if someone uses a T3i for performing paid work, weddings, portraits etc, he or she is obviously in it to make money and regardless of skill or gear by the classic definition since they're making money they are defined as a "Pro".
If one was to have 15K worth of 1D X body and "L" lens yet never did photography for money then they would fit the definition of either Consumer or Amateur depending on their aspirations I suppose.
So in my opinion there is “professional” level gear (rather easy to define) and then there is the category of the user/photographer (much more subjective to define).
Lastly there is the SKILL of the photographer, this catagory for me seems pretty easy to define as well. If an individual is capable of setting or preparing for and capturing what they set out to get with regard to the composition, exposure etc.. then they are, in my mind, demonstrating a professional skill level regardless of the gear they own/use. Someone with professional level skills can most likely create better images with lower level gear than a consumer and amateur with the best gear.
So from my perspective I would break it down like this for Canon DSLR bodies:
Pro 1D series
5D series
7D
Amateur 60D series
Consumer Rebel series
Application:
Makes a living from photography Pro
Sometimes sells prints but does not do it full time Amateur
Never sells anything all for personal satisfaction/interest Consumer
Skill level:
Creates the image he or she setout to create almost always Pro
Creates image he or she intended at least half the time Amateur
Creates decent images but most often relies on the
equipment and very basic knowledge to get the picture
without a lot of work Consumer
Please don't be to harsh, these are JUST MY OPINIONS and I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings its just how I percevie things.
Upvote
0
I Think y'all are making this pro definition too complex, but the most important concept to understand is that companies exist to make profit. and the more profit they make the happier their CEOs and boards of directors and shareholders are. Companies manipulate their SKUs and their product lines, including what they name their products and how many of them to produce, based on what their research shows what causes people to part with their money. It isn't about who is better at all; in fact it isn't about the photographer at all, it is about what Canon thinks of the photographer.
And so Canon puts different features into different models, not necesssarily based on mfg cost (although that is certainly part of it), but based on what will make them money. For example; there are people will read the number of MPs on the box and buy the commodity with the biggest number but don't want to spend very much money on it -- and there are cameras for those buyers because Canon wants their money. There are also people who care more about eeking out that last bit of ISO/dynamic range and noise performance, and will trade that for a fewer number of pixels, and who want a camera durable enough to snap a half million frames, to work in the rain, or perhaps at high fps with an AF system that will track birds and balls. Others want to capture every mood of the pine cone in the shade of the mountain at a thousand feet. My point is that some people are more likely to pay more for certain features, and Canon knows it, so bodies are spec'd and priced accordingly. Its market segmentation. What we normaly think of as a "pro" may be true in many cases (folks who are very succesful generating income with the equipment they purchase) , but really what we should say is that there are features that some photographers want which help them produce the results they want (whatever that is, even if it is a perception) and they are willing to pay for it. And Canon wants their money too.
And so Canon puts different features into different models, not necesssarily based on mfg cost (although that is certainly part of it), but based on what will make them money. For example; there are people will read the number of MPs on the box and buy the commodity with the biggest number but don't want to spend very much money on it -- and there are cameras for those buyers because Canon wants their money. There are also people who care more about eeking out that last bit of ISO/dynamic range and noise performance, and will trade that for a fewer number of pixels, and who want a camera durable enough to snap a half million frames, to work in the rain, or perhaps at high fps with an AF system that will track birds and balls. Others want to capture every mood of the pine cone in the shade of the mountain at a thousand feet. My point is that some people are more likely to pay more for certain features, and Canon knows it, so bodies are spec'd and priced accordingly. Its market segmentation. What we normaly think of as a "pro" may be true in many cases (folks who are very succesful generating income with the equipment they purchase) , but really what we should say is that there are features that some photographers want which help them produce the results they want (whatever that is, even if it is a perception) and they are willing to pay for it. And Canon wants their money too.
Upvote
0
dlleno said:
Ok, here's the classic definition - a "pro" camera is when you wade through mud in the trenches, jump away from incoming grenades and after days of rain your camera is still working. That's when Nikon and their "F" got their reputation from...
dlleno said:
Indeed - but shareholder value doesn't only extend to the next quarter report, but beyond, too. And alienating the customer base that is (only!) currently pinned to one's product by their lenses & flashes is not a sound long-term strategy. So if you differentiate your product lineup too short-sales oriented and the mix of features in each specific product themselves do not make sense, you won't survive the competition.
And Canon is really on the edge, e.g. with leaving out afma from the 60d or all the little software annoyances to make you wish for a better body while your current one would do just fine with a firmware upgrade. I hope they learn from the d800 - Nikon's reputation has skyrocketed around Canon users since then, and Canon might be sorry to have tried to squeeze every last $ out of 5d3 customers.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
sure thats one of a few features that Canon and others have found people will pay for. along with durable shutters, focusing at f/8, etc.
right, and all those things are part of shareholder value, unless of course you are a short term shareholder. Marketing is marketing, and it can bring success or failure. I view the 5D3 pricing in that category -- one wonders what Canon did or did not know, and if they got caught resting on their laurels, Suddenly propelling themselves into the "Higher priced mfg" label.
no argument there. and I suspect they are carefully weighing the 7D2 intro, so that a D800-like embarrassment does not happen!
Upvote
0
X
!Xabbu
Guest
dlleno said:
Let's hope this will happen. It feels like history shows that Canon has a tendency to willingly cripple their "lower level" cameras (i.e. the AF on the 5D II, no AFMA on the 60D, AF on all xxxD/xxxxD bodies, ...). However, I think the 7D and 5D III show that Canon can also up it's game and deliver awesome products.
Upvote
0
!Xabbu said:
However, to be fair Nikon used to differentiate bodies with different sensors, while Canon does/did it with features like af. It's just these deliberately left out firmware features that I'm not too happy about - but having said that, the 60d is a complete package with "works for me" customization. I sometimes wonder if afma capability is in the body and just disabled, or if they cut costs and changed the hardware...
!Xabbu said:
Crippling cheaper bodies wouldn't make sense if there wasn't the "real" thing - but at a big premium price like the 5d3 now or the 7d vs the 60d most of the time.
Upvote
0
As far as I can tell the fine tuning auto focus it's not about the bodies but about lenses. Canon can have higher quality output with lower quality hardware while still charging OEM premium. This is it cost effective strategy but it's not good for us consumers. I guess thats is one of the reasons that if I purchase a Canon lens that is not spot on I will not feel bad returning it to Canon as many times as it takes to have a perfect one perfect until I have to upgrade bodies. :-\
Upvote
0
kdsand said:
You're correct - however, Canon seems to adjust their lenses better anyway. Every Canon lens I ever tried had no afma problems (in contrast to 3rd party manufacturers like Tamron). That's why I think leaving out the afma from the 60d was not just intended to make the 7d look better, but mostly to torpedo 3rd party sales - I'll probably buy a Tamron 24-70, but won't getting around looking for a sample that fits my camera body out of the box.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
