Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation

 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2013
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> high end by Canon's other DSLRs. Ask yourself why you would buy a T5i instead
> of a 70D (unless you needed it tomorrow).


Price difference 40+% difference, from what I see.

> And who's going to buy enough SL1's
> for Canon to make money on it?


People who want small cameras with large sensors and proper
viewfinders. Some people need to travel light and small, for
example and still not want a compact camera or an unnecessary
EVIL.

> I don't guess Canon's trying to "drive" anybody anywhere. But I don't
> understand their increasingly confusing product line. (Of course I don't
> understand Nikon's either. They turn out camera after camera but studiously
> avoid making the one that everybody says they want: the "D300 successor".)


Canon's lines are quite easy to understand, if one looks at
them. They're differenciating lately towards more choice
in small DSLR/cheaper DSLR, because there choice is king as
more players are on the market.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2013
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 22:51:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: > high end by Canon's other DSLRs. Ask yourself why you would buy a T5i instead
: > of a 70D (unless you needed it tomorrow).
:
: Price difference 40+% difference, from what I see.
:
: > And who's going to buy enough SL1's
: > for Canon to make money on it?
:
: People who want small cameras with large sensors and proper
: viewfinders. Some people need to travel light and small, for
: example and still not want a compact camera or an unnecessary
: EVIL.
:
: > I don't guess Canon's trying to "drive" anybody anywhere. But I don't
: > understand their increasingly confusing product line. (Of course I don't
: > understand Nikon's either. They turn out camera after camera but studiously
: > avoid making the one that everybody says they want: the "D300 successor".)
:
: Canon's lines are quite easy to understand, if one looks at
: them. They're differenciating lately towards more choice
: in small DSLR/cheaper DSLR, because there choice is king as
: more players are on the market.

Wandering a little further OT, I think Canon's product line could use a
50-150mm f/2.8. I'd make it an EF "L" lens, to fit FF cameras, but it would be
intended mainly for the 7D. I love my (well, my employer's) 70-200 f/2.8, but
it's very heavy and a bit long for the small-hall event photography that I
usually do. Sigma is back in the game with a stabilized 50-150; but it isn't
cheap, and I'm pretty sure it's not in the same league with Canon's L's.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2013
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 22:51:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>: Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>: > high end by Canon's other DSLRs. Ask yourself why you would buy a T5i instead
>: > of a 70D (unless you needed it tomorrow).


>: Price difference 40+% difference, from what I see.


>: > And who's going to buy enough SL1's
>: > for Canon to make money on it?


>: People who want small cameras with large sensors and proper
>: viewfinders. Some people need to travel light and small, for
>: example and still not want a compact camera or an unnecessary
>: EVIL.


>: > I don't guess Canon's trying to "drive" anybody anywhere. But I don't
>: > understand their increasingly confusing product line. (Of course I don't
>: > understand Nikon's either. They turn out camera after camera but studiously
>: > avoid making the one that everybody says they want: the "D300 successor".)


>: Canon's lines are quite easy to understand, if one looks at
>: them. They're differenciating lately towards more choice
>: in small DSLR/cheaper DSLR, because there choice is king as
>: more players are on the market.


> Wandering a little further OT, I think Canon's product line could use a
> 50-150mm f/2.8. I'd make it an EF "L" lens, to fit FF cameras,


What does it have for FF that the 70-200 doesn't have?
And you can always add a 50mm for little enough money, and
they're much faster than f/2.8.


> but it would be intended mainly for the 7D.


That would mean EF-S, and probably 40-125mm or thereabouts, as
a 70-200-in-crop. And there's already a 28-135mm, a 55-250mm
and a 28-300mm (and the 18-200mm), albeit all of them slower
than f/2.8.


> I love my (well, my employer's) 70-200 f/2.8, but
> it's very heavy


A 50-150 would be much the same.

> and a bit long for the small-hall event photography that I
> usually do.


In which case a 18-135 should work well as a focal range ---
not only has it enough reach, it also goes to wide angle.
Oh, 480g for the new STM variant should help.

Alternatively --- since the 70-200 is too long anyway --- use
the 24-105 or even the 24-70 f/2.8, and switch to the 70-200
only when needed.

Alternatively, put a 50mm on your 7D and have a 85 or 100 or 135
in the bag. (as well as e.g. the 10-22mm and/or the 17-40mm)
Then you have much better than f/2.8, too.

> Sigma is back in the game with a stabilized 50-150; but it isn't
> cheap, and I'm pretty sure it's not in the same league with Canon's L's.


As you point out, there's the 70-200. A 50-150 only add 20mm
downwards. Just use a 50mm already ...


I can see many things that could be done for high end crop
cameras, but a 50-150 doesn't appear there. A 60-200 may
happen some day, though --- back then they were 80-200mm.


-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2013
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:58:58 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > Wandering a little further OT, I think Canon's product line could use a
: > 50-150mm f/2.8. I'd make it an EF "L" lens, to fit FF cameras,
:
: What does it have for FF that the 70-200 doesn't have?
: And you can always add a 50mm for little enough money, and
: they're much faster than f/2.8.

Not much for FF, but that's not the point. A FF 50-150 is well within Canon's
design capability, so why not? Then at least the lens is still available if I
buy it for my 7D's but decide later to go FF. As a potential FF wannabe, I
made a conscious decision to stop buying APS-C lenses, and I doubt that I'm
alone in that.

: > but it would be intended mainly for the 7D.
:
: That would mean EF-S, and probably 40-125mm or thereabouts, as
: a 70-200-in-crop. And there's already a 28-135mm, a 55-250mm
: and a 28-300mm (and the 18-200mm), albeit all of them slower
: than f/2.8.

And they're not constant-aperture zooms. One can usually live with that for
landscape and architecture photography, but for indoor event photography it's
a deal breaker.

: > I love my (well, my employer's) 70-200 f/2.8, but
: > it's very heavy
:
: A 50-150 would be much the same.

It could (and should) be noticeably lighter.

: > and a bit long for the small-hall event photography that I
: > usually do.

Which is the real reason I'd like a 50-150. It wouldn't leave a gap above my
17-55 (Canon's standard APS-C walkaround lens), like the 70-200 does.

: In which case a 18-135 should work well as a focal range ---
: not only has it enough reach, it also goes to wide angle.
: Oh, 480g for the new STM variant should help.

Besides not being a CA lens, it has a bit longer range than I prefer a zoom to
have. I'm already resigned to carrying two cameras at events (I've been doing
it for several years), and ideally the two lenses should overlap, but only by
a little.

: Alternatively --- since the 70-200 is too long anyway --- use
: the 24-105

I've thought about it, but I need the extra stop.

: or even the 24-70 f/2.8,

If I could afford it. But anyway, neither of those lenses is wide enough on a
7D. At the events I do, there's always a group picture to be taken, and that
means going below 24mm.

: and switch to the 70-200 only when needed.

My events (awards ceremonies and the like) usually don't offer many
opportunities to change lenses.

: Alternatively, put a 50mm on your 7D and have a 85 or 100 or 135
: in the bag. (as well as e.g. the 10-22mm and/or the 17-40mm)
: Then you have much better than f/2.8, too.
:
: > Sigma is back in the game with a stabilized 50-150; but it isn't
: > cheap, and I'm pretty sure it's not in the same league with Canon's L's.
:
: As you point out, there's the 70-200. A 50-150 only add 20mm
: downwards. Just use a 50mm already ...

I already use a 17-55. The issue is what do I carry that's longer.

: I can see many things that could be done for high end crop
: cameras, but a 50-150 doesn't appear there. A 60-200 may
: happen some day, though --- back then they were 80-200mm.

Let's face it: I don't expect Canon to pay much attention to my argument for
the 50-150 (and certainly not as a FF lens). But I thought I might as well
throw the idea out there.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2013
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:58:58 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: > Wandering a little further OT, I think Canon's product line could use a
>: > 50-150mm f/2.8. I'd make it an EF "L" lens, to fit FF cameras,


>: What does it have for FF that the 70-200 doesn't have?
>: And you can always add a 50mm for little enough money, and
>: they're much faster than f/2.8.


> Not much for FF, but that's not the point.


So a 50-150 FF lens doesn't make much sense. QED.

> A FF 50-150 is well within Canon's
> design capability, so why not?


Does it sell?

> Then at least the lens is still available if I
> buy it for my 7D's but decide later to go FF. As a potential FF wannabe, I
> made a conscious decision to stop buying APS-C lenses, and I doubt that I'm
> alone in that.


You could as well have bought a 70-200mm and a 50mm prime.
Or upgrade to FF right now and buy a 70-200mm anyways.


>: > but it would be intended mainly for the 7D.


>: That would mean EF-S, and probably 40-125mm or thereabouts, as
>: a 70-200-in-crop. And there's already a 28-135mm, a 55-250mm
>: and a 28-300mm (and the 18-200mm), albeit all of them slower
>: than f/2.8.


> And they're not constant-aperture zooms. One can usually live with that for
> landscape and architecture photography, but for indoor event photography it's
> a deal breaker.


Nope. The deal breaker is that the long end may be dark.

But then --- a 20D went to ISO 1600. From f/2.8 to f/5.6 means
you need ISO 6400, which is well inside the capabilities of
more modern cameras.


>: > I love my (well, my employer's) 70-200 f/2.8, but
>: > it's very heavy


>: A 50-150 would be much the same.


> It could (and should) be noticeably lighter.


Not as a FF f/2.8 "L" lens.
Try f/4.


>: > and a bit long for the small-hall event photography that I
>: > usually do.


> Which is the real reason I'd like a 50-150. It wouldn't leave a gap above my
> 17-55 (Canon's standard APS-C walkaround lens), like the 70-200 does.


The gap between 55 and 70 is quite small. The usual steps
are ..., 35, 50, 85, 100, ...


>: In which case a 18-135 should work well as a focal range ---
>: not only has it enough reach, it also goes to wide angle.
>: Oh, 480g for the new STM variant should help.


> Besides not being a CA lens, it has a bit longer range than I prefer a zoom to
> have.


That only matters if it impacts your images.

> I'm already resigned to carrying two cameras at events (I've been doing
> it for several years), and ideally the two lenses should overlap, but only by
> a little.


Ideally you'd use a really fast lightfield camera.


>: Alternatively --- since the 70-200 is too long anyway --- use
>: the 24-105


> I've thought about it, but I need the extra stop.


At ISO 12,800?


>: or even the 24-70 f/2.8,


> If I could afford it. But anyway, neither of those lenses is wide enough on a
> 7D. At the events I do, there's always a group picture to be taken, and that
> means going below 24mm.


So you maybe really need a FF camera to put the 70-200 on,
and keep your 17-55 on the crop camera.


>: and switch to the 70-200 only when needed.


> My events (awards ceremonies and the like) usually don't offer many
> opportunities to change lenses.


Preplan.


> Let's face it: I don't expect Canon to pay much attention to my argument for
> the 50-150 (and certainly not as a FF lens). But I thought I might as well
> throw the idea out there.


Ah, trolling for comments ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation J. Clarke Digital Photography 0 07-03-2013 03:36 PM
Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation Joe Kotroczo Digital Photography 0 07-03-2013 03:21 PM
Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation PeterN Digital Photography 1 07-03-2013 12:58 PM
Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation RichA Digital Photography 0 07-03-2013 05:40 AM
Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation David Taylor Digital Photography 0 07-03-2013 05:30 AM



Advertisments