kaycephoto
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Canon 24-70 II price announced. | |
akin_t wrote:
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?
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.
Sigh, I feel a long post coming.. both sides have valid points.. I\'ll try to present an alternative idea here, not saying I\'m right nor am I condoning Canon\'s marketing/pricing choices either.. I actually agree that Canon has been on the track to alienating a lot of its users lately..) But..
No doubt a sound photographer can make Setup 1 (5Dc + 70-200mkI) work & make a client very happy using that. that said, during a key shoot, I\'d opt for Setup 2 (5D2 + 70-200mkII) each & every time even if I knew I could get away with using the cheaper/older setup. But I wouldn\'t skimp unless I (financially) absolutely had to.. Why? This is my job - and I\'d like it to be my job for the rest of my life - each & every advantage that I can have in-camera reduces the amount of time I need in post, just as each advantage allows for additional possibilities, however minute they may be. Don\'t think clients ever really pick apart the finished product, but in every wedding album I still see many flaws in my own work..
And, I know I could do better work with Setup 2 than Setup 1, every single time. So for me, that\'s totally worth it. Positive that most of my colleagues I look up to would agree.
I think it\'s awesome that Canon can make my job & therefore life easier. Yes it\'s a lot of money - but I\'ll make those expenses back in no time. These lenses aren\'t going to break down in 5-10 yrs.. What\'s a grand extra in expenses spread out over 5-10 yrs for most working pros or even passionate hobbyists? Inflation is a bigger deal.
Is the 70-200mkII way better than the orig 70-200? For sure - in EVERY way.. Whether each photographer deems the upgrade worthwhile for their needs is a diff story.. Now before the 24-70mkII has even hit the streets, it seems a lot of people have already written it off.. even worse are the commenters who seem to feel that Canon has wronged them somehow.
The orig 24-70 was prob the lens I\'ve wanted to love the most, out of any lens I\'ve ever used (just about all of them under 800mm).. Always knew it was the staple of many working event/wedding photogs. Know many that are still very happy with it & have made tons of $ with it. That said, do I notice a big difference between every 24LmkII photo & every 24-70L photo I\'ve ever taken? For sure I do - even if my clients might not. Now that Canon (note: a for-profit company that owes me absolutely nothing) has engineered a better version of a lens, if I think it can help deliver improved results & save me time.. again, what\'s a grand for any serious photographer over the span of the 5-10 yrs minimum you\'d be using it?
I might get flamed for this.. but I\'m fine with Canon focusing on image quality & performance. The high price for early adopters is steep but it\'ll balance out over time. They prob will regret not putting IS on this 24-70mkII, but I (and a lot of wedding/pj/event shooters) won\'t really need it.. They chose to cut down on weight/size - cool, some will like it, some won\'t. Just don\'t really understand the negativity at this point I guess. PS (tongue in cheek comment coming up) I too would be happiest if they could announce a 14-200f2L IS for $1000 dollars.. but I\'m not expecting them to.
Just my 2 cents.. this is coming from someone who likes Nikon equipment just as much as Canon gear. could care less what it says on the front of the camera.
|
