digitalbug30d wrote:
why not do a Sony an do a FF for under 2k..if Sony can so can Canon
Sony has done this with Blu-ray players and the PS3 build em and take a loss
Sony full frame cameras are stripped down models. No Live View, no video. Two things that are now in demand for most camera markets. According to sales figures, Sony full frame cameras have not sold well either.
What new can they possibly bring to the market which would allow me to take significantly better pictures an/or do it more easily ?
400 f/5.6 IS.....that's about it.
Now, a little fantasy here.....400 f/2.8 DO would be very nice too if its IQ would be on the level of 400 f/2.8L. Yet, I certainly wouldn't wanna pay $9,500 for it.
PetKal wrote:
What new can they possibly bring to the market which would allow me to take significantly better pictures an/or do it more easily ?
Books on composition and studies of style would be cool.
Drag everyone from being gear fetishists
dwweiche wrote:
I think there is a misconception that removing features to create "no frills" or "basic functionality" cameras means companies can sell cameras for less. I think it goes the other way. Here's an example.
Before video, DSLR's already had the hardware necessary to do video. They just needed the software. Once that is written, it is probably largely portable to all camera tiers. So in this instance, the camera manufacturers take current HW, add a SW feature, then charge more for the camera. That's how you add value to charge more.
So, removing features like video and charging less would negatively impact profit, because the camera manufactures can't 'take anything out' of the camera to make them cheaper to produce. It's "just" software at that point.
Know what I mean? I've had some Mai Tai's so maybe I wasn't as eloquent in print as I sounded in my mind ...Show more →
Depends. I know that the T1i shoots at a slower frame rate than the 5D2 and can't record 1080p video faster than 20fps. This probably has a lot to do with the throughput in the camera, be it memory, processing power or the bus speed to handle file transfers. Upgrades in these realms could potentially cost a bit of money, depending on what is changed.
wickerprints wrote:
Sony can underprice because they have such *tiny* market share that they'll eat the loss just so that enough people will have bodies to use their lenses with.
There is no conceivable reason why Canon, being a DSLR market leader along with Nikon, should, or even could, do the same.
A lot of people seem to dream up absurd fantasies based on a complete misunderstanding of the technology and the market. Just because you *wish* it would happen doesn't mean it will, or even that it's possible. You may as well be wishing for a 500MP 35mm DSLR with 900 cross-type AF points all sensitive from f/1.0 to f/32, with zero noise, to go with your 100000mm f/0.7 super-duper telephoto that weighs only one pound and resolves 4000 lp/mm, all for $1. And the irony of this is that some people would still find reason to complain how it's not good enough or that it doesn't meet their needs....Show more →
Normally I would just '+1' a post like this, but that reply is equivilent to a number I cannot be bothered to type. Bravo sir.
digitalbug30d wrote:
well why not a no frills FF that does the intended job...pictures no video ect
I look at the old EOS3 just a downgraded version of a 1v...Canon doesnt have this in their line-up the 5Dmk2 isnt it....like I refered back a 16.7 mp FF,with same metering and A/F as a the 1 series,no live view ect plain jane camera
Would you pay $3500 for a 5D2 + a several extra AF sensors. ...no grip, no weather sealing, no 100% view finder. What you talking about is a 5D mkIII not a 3D. 5D2 + 7D = 5D3
With Canon's history your going to see a 1DmkIIN + 50D = 3D.
braddo_99 wrote:
5D2 + 7D = 3D Please. Would pay $3500
3d wrote: