Ralph Conway wrote:
Its warping my mind that if Nikon would have better IQ at lower prices (what could have been, if they would have investigatet more manpower and money in that the last 5 years). This is a very serious issue. Its very terrible to think what Nikon bodys could meen to all photographers, iff they would have best IQ ...
That 2nd post before is the most cracy comment I ever read ... :-)
Have a great day "eosfun, skibum6 and brainiac" I am not sure who of you wrote what though ...!
Ralph
haha, ok, this has gotten out of control.
so to clear it up once and for all. NO my original comment should not have been taken literally! It should be taken as light sarcasm. I agree taking it literally wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. And I dont think eosfun's comment was something to take entirely literally either.
as for the whole tad bit, bit bit thing i'm not quite sure what he was onto with that, I took it as some sort of grammar police thing, but maybe it was just a joke.
anyway move along, move allong, just a disaster of misinterpration, nothing more.
Ben Horne wrote:
I did the same with my D30. In both cases, we were lucky.
i think they are better built than people give them credit for and it's more like you are rather unlucky if any even half-way reasonable useage causes any problems.
for all the maligning about the 20D/40D build, they do pretty well for themselves.
same for tamron 17-50, it's tougher than people think.
RDKirk wrote:
Probably not. I suspect the technology involved in video is being distributed to all the cameras. I also suspect that Canon market research indicates cum-video to be "the next big thing," meaning that they believe they will make more money with this added feature than merely improving an AF system that is acceptable to most of their users. Once they developed "Live View," video was really just the next step.
that's possible, it is easy to forget that until 3-4 years ago for all the shooting I did, none if it really needed a body with more performance than even a Rebel2000 film body would deliver, I was doing 90% landscapes and scenics.
skibum5 wrote:
i think none, this is the bargain FF. Where is there a less expensive one (well talking outside of the UK, sorry guys) out there that is new??
question is how soon the 1dmkiv and at what price (will they do something like $3500 to have it a go against the D700?)
I agree - no chance. What would you dumb down? I could see a $4000 one though
1. I don't need video
2. I don't need a sensor larger than, say 15 megapixels
3. I don't need weather sealing
4. I don't need a camera capable (with grip) of wireless file transfer
Basically a D700 equivalent for a similar price tag. 5D2 seems overkill to me, how many amateurs were really lusting after such a detailed sensor I wonder?, are Canon going to make full frame affordable, or not? I seem to remember that on one FM thread someone quoted a Canon executive saying that FF would get cheaper. The 5D2 is not a particularly affordable camera IMHO, unless you are a pro or very well off. With the cost of the 5D2, and the high cost of the new 24L Mk2, I am beginning to wonder if Canon are going to remain affordable for many amateurs, perhaps the ridiculous cost of the 14L should have warned me.
I think Canon need to reconnect with their mid-range customers, those who can afford a D700 type camera at a D700 price, but who aren't happy paying one half of Leica prices.
1. I don't need video
2. I don't need a sensor larger than, say 15 megapixels
3. I don't need weather sealing
4. I don't need a camera capable (with grip) of wireless file transfer
cogitech wrote:
Isn't it all relative to your overall standard of living and salaries, though?
(Otherwise the average Norwegian would be shooting with a 300D, and that's not what I am seeing)
Indeed it is, if you compare the acerage vage, we are quite lucky I'm a part time working student, and I'm having an easy time getting money for a 5d mkII :P
David Baldwin wrote:
I think Canon need to reconnect with their mid-range customers, those who can afford a D700 type camera at a D700 price, but who aren't happy paying one half of Leica prices.
You realize that the D700 is more expensive than the 5D MKII, right?
As Ben said, the current 5D could be a very nice option for you if you don't require any of the new features.
ulrikft wrote:
Indeed it is, if you compare the acerage vage, we are quite lucky I'm a part time working student, and I'm having an easy time getting money for a 5d mkII :P
5D2 is not a particularly affordable camera IMHO, unless you are a pro or very well off.
According to the Canon chief of the imaging division, the 5D was specifically designed to draw "very well-off" Japanese enthusiasts from film. Canon USA is marketing it to professionals.
Either way, it's never been intended by Canon for anyone but professionals and the very well off.
duracellbunny wrote:
Bloody hell! Students these days are spoiled!
For the record, I work 250 hours each month I'm not in school :P and i work 60-120 hours those months I am in school. so the only things I actually do is read, work, workout and shoot :P
Ben Horne wrote:
They do make this camera. It's called a 5D.
Yup .... and it's a proven model and everything works as it's supposed to, with very high IQ. It's cheap too .... and getting cheaper by the month! Grab one before it's too late!
skibum5 wrote:
tad bit means even less than a tad or a bit
get get?
no no. in what language language? bit is noun noun not not adjective adjective. piece piece does does not not mean mean piece piece of of a a piece piece. at at least least, not not in in English English. ;-)
brainiac wrote:
no no. in what language language? bit is noun noun not not adjective adjective. piece piece does does not not mean mean piece piece of of a a piece piece. at at least least, not not in in English English. ;-)
I'm a part time working student, and I'm having an easy time getting money for a 5d mkII :P