akin_t
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #18 · Canon 24-70 II price announced. | |
splathrop wrote:
A few thoughts on prices and performance trade offs.
Canon is drawing a line across the camera market, which perhaps will no longer be regarded as quasi-continuous from point-and-shoot upward through entry-level-DSLRs through 5D-type-DSLR's to pro bodies at the top. The new reality is going to be down-market customers who are expected to stay down market with point-and-shoots (below the line), and professionals and rich amateurs above the line.
For professionals, at least, creating a chasm to divide pricing and capabilities may prove helpful. It will help differentiate what pros have to offer. The pressure to decide will be on enthusiasts who do not shoot for money. The few rich ones will go above the new line, the many others down to the top of the ever-improving point-and-shoot market. That might ease economic crowding in the pro market, where low barriers to entry have produced distortions. If it happened, that alone could justify paying higher prices for pro gear.
That, at least, is what the new pricing policies might be expected to do, if all you look at is marketing strategy and its impact on prices. But here is a further question. Above the line, what are photographers going to get that a client can see and want to pay for?
The present generation of higher-end bodies and lenses already produces superb quality. Right now, enlargements bigger than a typical wedding client, for example, would choose to order, nevertheless meet fairly exacting image quality standards. Yet more resolution—from bodies or lenses—is mainly going to increase enlargeability, with also some extra benefit for low light capability.
There will be a market for that among landscape shooters, for sure. But who else? High end fashion, probably. Products, probably. Sports? Stage? Events? News? Are they all crying out for prints bigger than 30- or 40-inches? Maybe not, or maybe their standards will simply increase to embrace higher image quality as it becomes available. But it's not easy to see how a news photographer is going to use—or even not be inconvenienced by—much bigger image files delivering resolution that publishing outlets can not reproduce.
If Canon's new prices are harbingers of a push toward 35mm photography good enough to rival large format film, then it's reasonable to ask how big was the market for large format film?
...Show more →
Your post would make sense if the more expensive gear guaranteed better pictures than the cheaper gear.
When it comes to any technically sound picture (by technically sound I mean focus is good, exposure is good, no handshake), lighting and subject matter are the only things that dictate if it's a good shot or not.
Sharpness, Chromatic Aberrations, etc are all important, but it's not as if the cheaper lenses are unusable.
Photographer 1: 5D classic + 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK1
Photographer 2: 5D MK2 + 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK2
You honestly think, photographer 2 is going to be undoubtedly deliver better pictures because his gear is more expensive? I beg to differ, even if they obtain identical shots, you'd be hard pressed to see the difference in their work.
I mean, for every f/2.8 zoom on the high end, there's an f/2.8 zoom on the cheap end, same goes for f/1.8 primes and telephotos, wide-angles etc.
In other words, there exist tools that allow a photographer of any budget to get any shot.
|
Laughable and insulting all at once. 
crazy, same thing with 500 and 400....nuts