Access wrote:
I believe a nature shooter (of just about any type) would desire ruggedness, weather-sealing, water resistance, dirt/dust/other elements more than, say, a sports shooter or a general action shooter.
Sure everyone wants the most rugged camera body they can get until it starts to cost too much. How much is too much is the $64,000 question. Yes, landscape and general nature photographers want weather resistent cameras, but when the weather gets really bad they either stay or get indoor or pitch their tent and get out of the rain.
If you're a sports or action shooter that's not always possible or desirable. I've shoot high school football in the pouring rain. I've also shot it in near blizzard conditions. It's no different with the pro sports. I've shoot surfing when the wind (and sand) was blowing 30 MPH. I've also seen dads and moms shooting stills (but mostly video) of their son playing in the rain and snow so that it can be sent to college scouts etc. Don't undersell the need so called soccer moms have for weatherized camera bodies
EB-1 wrote:
I know more women that have a 500/4 and 1D series than a 7D and some shorter lens. You know, it does not take great strength to handle such equipment.
EBH
All the women shooters I know...shoot NIKON! Maybe their gear is lighter?
Jeff Donald wrote:
...Don't undersell the need so called soccer moms have for weatherized camera bodies.
You saved me a response .
Or part of one- generally, when I think action, I see a situation where the photographer is required to be mobile and where situational awareness will be limited somewhat, such to the point that one's control of the shooting environment will be limited, and thus warrant gear with more protection.
Not looking for submersible cameras or cameras that can survive being run over, but surviving a small drop on a hard surface or a bit of spray should be, and largely is, the minimum for an action-oriented camera.
Jeff Donald wrote:
Sure everyone wants the most rugged camera body they can get until it starts to cost too much. How much is too much is the $64,000 question. Yes, landscape and general nature photographers want weather resistent cameras, but when the weather gets really bad they either stay or get indoor or pitch their tent and get out of the rain.
If you're a sports or action shooter that's not always possible or desirable. I've shoot high school football in the pouring rain. I've also shot it in near blizzard conditions. It's no different with the pro sports. I've shoot surfing when the wind (and sand) was blowing 30 MPH. I've also seen dads and moms shooting stills (but mostly video) of their son playing in the rain and snow so that it can be sent to college scouts etc. Don't undersell the need so called soccer moms have for weatherized camera bodies ...Show more →
Agree...and "been there/done that." Which is why when I was active I bought a 1D and stopped using my 20D.
I'm really looking for a 1d MkIV replacement honestly. Something below $3500 with a fully weatherized body and the specs to match the needs of the sports/action/wildlife shooter.
Ideally? Why not a 1D level "7D"? Who knows...they could leave off the full 1 series grip to save $ and weight, and just make a smaller profile tank that will handle the elements. Put a killer AF system in it, give it a great sensor (read: NEW, FF, 'H' or 'C' does it really matter in the long run nowadays?) and performance.
Since we're dreaming-offer it in two levels/styles:
7D PRO with full-size 1D series body...$3000-$3500 range
7D MkII in a 5d III body...$2000-$2500 range
Ok....so I'm using the number "7" where we are used to seeing a "1". But a rose by any other name...
Jeff Donald wrote:
Absolutely true. I think most BIF shooters are also involved in wildlife and perhaps landscapes, scenics etc. However, BIF and sports/action shooters stress their equipment more in my experience. I generally don't shoot sunrises, sunsets etc. at 8 FPS. When it's raining or snowing I'm still on the sideline, but not watching the sunset.
I have two 7D's and the one I bought in 2009 (first body in Tampa) has almost 300,000 exposures on it. The metal body is cracked in two places from being dropped 3 or 4 times, but it still works flawlessly. The second body looks almost like new and has just over 100,000 exposures on it. This is not the kind of abuse/use that an xxD or Rebel/Kiss body will withstand. ...Show more →
The point I meant to make is, we shouldn't asking for this dichotomy of features. Sure I want 12fps and amazing multi-point AF, but that doesn't mean just because you don't shoot sport that we also need a camera that only shoots 3fps and has a few AF points. Use as much or as few features of the camera that works for you. Often we may not even realise so-called high-end features that bif shooters may demand are of benefit to many other users. The 1D/5DIII AF is also great for wedding and event shooters for example. Also come resale time, it's a lot easier to sell a camera that can equally cater to anyone's style of shooting than one that is a one trick pony.
jjoejr wrote:
"Because those poor ickle ladies can't use big boys cameras? Seriously dude"
Yea dude, seriously I'll repeat it again if necessary. I've met a lot of ladies through the last 10 years, and the main complaint was the size and weight of the lens and equipment. Most if not all do not want to transport a gimbal, tripod, and large lens. They want the freedom of reach, and weight especially for BIF. Perhaps the ladies you hang with are more manly than the southern belles I meet?......Ha!
John
EB-1 wrote:
I know more women that have a 500/4 and 1D series than a 7D and some shorter lens. You know, it does not take great strength to handle such equipment.
EBH
Mongrel wrote:
All the women shooters I know...shoot NIKON! Maybe their gear is lighter?
I know some too, but they were using the 200-400/4 or 500/4. The Canon IS II series of long teles is much lighter in weight, but some lighter Nikkors are being introduced.
Access wrote:
I believe a nature shooter (of just about any type) would desire ruggedness, weather-sealing, water resistance, dirt/dust/other elements more than, say, a sports shooter or a general action shooter.
So sports shooters always shoot indoors or in clear outdoors situations? I shoot both wildlife/BIF and sports, and the I look for and use the same features for both. Ever shoot sports and have a basketball player fall on you, or have a ball fly right at your face as you are shooting the action? Ever shoot sports in the rain, because not all sports take a time out for wet weather. Some sports are very dirty. Ever shoot a softball/baseball game with windstorms? Dirt everywhere...
I agree with the others, wildlife shooting uses a vast majority of features and build characteristics as sports.
Access wrote:
Imagemaster to me BIF falls under "nature" photography, and then a very specific type of nature photography.
So what? You don't think sports shooters have basically the same criteria?
You can put it under action but no matter how you look at it, it doesn't change that there aren't a lot of BIF shooters out there.
Again, so what? Why don't you quote us the numbers, instead of making broad statements based on no facts?
If you look at what the the amateur sports shooter wants and what the BIF shooter wants -- camera, capabilities, price point -- sure there are some commonalities. But there are also some notable differences. If the 7D2 is for real, it's most likely going to cater to the former.
There are lots of commonalities. Name all the notable differences.
I know more women that have a 500/4 and 1D series than a 7D and some shorter lens. You know, it does not take great strength to handle such equipment.
EBH
Don't take my word for it. Go ahead and ask the women on this list. Take a poll.
Full frame with a minimum 500mm lens or rumored cropped 7DII with a new 100-400mm zoom for birding, wildlife, and action shots.
John
I went to Iceland on a birding trip and all the women (5 of the 12 photographers) were using 500/600 f/4L as their main lens, they also had 70-200L and/or 100-400L. While the 500's were mostly on tripods they were often hand held.
Jeff Donald wrote:
If you're a sports or action shooter that's not always possible or desirable. I've shoot high school football in the pouring rain. I've also shot it in near blizzard conditions. It's no different with the pro sports. I've shoot surfing when the wind (and sand) was blowing 30 MPH. I've also seen dads and moms shooting stills (but mostly video) of their son playing in the rain and snow so that it can be sent to college scouts etc. Don't undersell the need so called soccer moms have for weatherized camera bodies
There is a difference between a desire to have in a product they purchase and actually having a use for the feature at some point in the future.
The mindset of a nature photographer is that he expects to deal with the elements in his activities and would likely factor that into his buying decision. We see this with all sorts of equipment (not just cameras) sold to outdoorsmen, it's rugged and designed to stand up to abuse. I don't expect that an amateur sports shooter thinks the same way. I'm not saying this type won't actually encounter the elements, or doesn't have a use for it, I'm sure many ultimately do. Just that it's not on the top of their mind when they're considering buying (or not buying) the product.
Not to get hung up over one feature or another. It's more a matter of price point -- if something had to give to keep the price down, I assume that would be among the first to go.
Access wrote:
I believe a nature shooter (of just about any type) would desire ruggedness, weather-sealing, water resistance,
dirt/dust/other elements more than, say, a sports shooter or a general action shooter.
Have you taken a look at the gear that sports shooters walk around with? It typically looks like it has led a hard life of travel and bumps and bruises. I've seen a lot of these guys shoot in downpours with no rain gear. I seriously doubt a nature shooter requires higher ruggedness then a sports shooter.
ggreene wrote:
Have you taken a look at the gear that sports shooters walk around with? It typically looks like it has led a hard life of travel and bumps and bruises. I've seen a lot of these guys shoot in downpours with no rain gear. I seriously doubt a nature shooter requires higher ruggedness then a sports shooter.
But unlike some people, you don't know the mindset of nature shooters compared to the mindset of sports shooters.
We all debate while we wait, September can't get here quick enough...it's only August 1st, do continue the speculation and general neck wringing, it's all quite entertaining and enlightening
ggreene wrote:
Have you taken a look at the gear that sports shooters walk around with? It typically looks like it has led a hard life of travel and bumps and bruises. I've seen a lot of these guys shoot in downpours with no rain gear. I seriously doubt a nature shooter requires higher ruggedness then a sports shooter.
On occasion yes, I remember the first time I saw a 300 f/2.8; while shooting a beach volleyball tournament with my Rebel (300D). Pretty beaten up, hood held on by duct tape and so on. But the shooter was an advanced photographer who had been doing it for years. Not a casual.
IMO we know a lot about who Canon targets with its models by the lenses they bundle with them. I believe the original 7D was bundled with the 28-135mm zoom? Whereas the 5D2, 5D3, 6D kit is bundled with a 'L' lens, xxD series are bundled with a wide-range zoom and rebels with a cheap normal-range zoom.
Access wrote:
On occasion yes, I remember the first time I saw a 300 f/2.8; while shooting a beach volleyball tournament with my Rebel (300D). Pretty beaten up, hood held on by duct tape and so on. But the shooter was an advanced photographer who had been doing it for years. Not a casual.
Actually a lot of mid level pro's use the 7D for sports. It's not just a casual body. If I were Canon I would make damn sure the 7D2 has a good build and weather resistance. If the mini-1DX rumors are true a lot of people are going to be interested in it.
Sounds fake and let us hope so. Most of those specs are the same, or even worse, than the current 7D! A 2 second RAW buffer (even lower than the 7D with the current firmware!)?? A 19pt AF that sounds like the old one?? 20MP sensor that sounds like the 70D sensor?? Not a peep about 4k video or 1080p RAW video or improved image quality from the sensor. How could it possible take Canon this many years to only come up with this?
I mean all that is is a 7D with a 70D sensor and GPS and Wifi built in and larger grip for more battery storage in cam! After half a decade
Access wrote:
IMO we know a lot about who Canon targets with its models by the lenses they bundle with them. I believe the original 7D was bundled with the 28-135mm zoom? Whereas the 5D2, 5D3, 6D kit is bundled with a 'L' lens, xxD series are bundled with a wide-range zoom and rebels with a cheap normal-range zoom.
And what about all the models that are sold as "body only"? I have never bought a new DSLR with a bundled lens.
ggreene wrote:
Actually a lot of mid level pro's use the 7D for sports. It's not just a casual body. If I were Canon I would make damn sure the 7D2 has a good build and weather resistance. If the mini-1DX rumors are true a lot of people are going to be interested in it.
Mini-1DX would be nice but if that's true you know there's going to be a lot of howling about the price.
"Guess that makes me the untargeted consumer."
Same here but I think most people on these boards are.
"Sounds fake and let us hope so. Most of those specs are the same, or even worse, than the current 7D!"
Hopefully I'm not the only one who detects a hint of sarcasm in that "article".
.
