Results 18 to 34 of 70
Thread: Canon EOS 7D
09-02-2009, 05:25 PM #18
09-02-2009, 05:27 PM #19
09-02-2009, 08:00 PM #20
the camera body is much cheaper when compare to the lenses. pro bodies are normally to be paired with pro lenses. you may have rugged camera body that is water sealed, dust sealed and able to withstand knocks. there is no point to get a 7D and couple with kit lens. the lens will not survive while you take photos during drizzling weather.
like me as enthusiast, i did carry EOS1VHS before, it just too troublesome. getting a smaller body and few good lenses now, i can enjoy traveling and taking photos. rather than lugging the 10kgs bag moving around. if you are pro, that means you make living by taking photos, it will be fine. as mostly you will travel alone and shoot photos. more crazy enthusiast will have gang of members to take photos. where as 7D, 50D will a good one to pick. several members with the same intention will take time to snap photos.
if you go with your boyfriend, he will be there yawning .......
09-02-2009, 08:05 PM #21
maybe next year bonus, you may either get 7D or 50D or wait another year, another new DSLR body. changing to FF format, you need to replace half of your current lenses. ouch......
it is just a tool to take photos, the artistic idea is more important.
09-02-2009, 08:44 PM #22
Does the 7D have dedicated top quality L lenses without having to use its bigger brother's?
09-02-2009, 09:57 PM #23
09-02-2009, 09:59 PM #24
09-02-2009, 09:59 PM #25
7D doesnt need dedicated lenses. EF-s lenses are more for kit lens, good for enthusiast or beginner.
great L lenses for 7D;
1. EF16-35mm F2.8L II USM
2. EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM
3. EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
4. EF 24mm f/1.4L USM
5. EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
6. EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
7. EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II
8. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
9. EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM10. EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
11. EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
12. EF 400mm f/2.8L II USM
13. EF 500mm f4.0L IS USM
14. EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
pick few and you will be fine.
FX or DX format is good for telephoto. getting at 200mm f/2.8 is equivalent buying a 300mm f/2.8 but the price difference will be RM10,000.
saving that amount is easily can get wide angle lenses to counter.
one needs to get into or hands-on experience rather than complaining that no good, this no good.
professional can make living by having D30 + 300mm f/2.8 for wildlife photography. even D30 + 50mm f/2.8 II(costing RM300), also able to take stars photography at night.
buying Leica S2 + Summarit-S 35mm f/2.5, doesnt mean anyone can take some good photographs.
09-02-2009, 10:06 PM #26
09-02-2009, 10:31 PM #27
Instead, one brilliant idea of a high quality body is being let down without another matching brilliant idea of dedicated high quality lenses (for the format) that are not only smaller but would also be faster.
Legacy F/F L lenses let in unwanted light into a smaller EOS 7D body. Even the best of care to minimize glare from such unwanted light can do such much. Isn't it better to cure the source of this problem by coming out with dedicated L lenses for this format? Why throw in rubbish and then try to clean it up when a more simple and more effective solution is prevent any such rubbish from being thrown in?
Time will tell if a 3-year old 7D body can be had for one tenth its original value. I think it will be easy. But then would you want to buy one, when by then there will be so many goodies coming on stream?
09-02-2009, 10:48 PM #28
why no need dedicated? is to reduce cost.
dedicated lense of 7-12mm(if i recall correctly the range, new release) costing at GBP1,000 which is RM6000. the quality for not even Canon's lowest quality of L lense.
yes, there are some people will only drive Rolls-Royce and say BMW is a crap car. what happened to Rolls-Royce then?
can above average enthusiast spend USD2000 and get leica S2 + dedicated lense? which mean that i can only dream EOS 1D Mark III at RM500.
09-02-2009, 11:53 PM #29
09-03-2009, 12:16 AM #30
A 200mm/2.8 in FF vs a 200mm/2.0 in APS-C, the latter is almost always heavier. No solid example in the 200mm world but 300mm is quite common FL. The Olympus 300/2.8 weighs in a 3.2kg (4/3 format). Nikon and Canon's FF 300/2.8 weighs in 2.85kg and 2.55kg. 1 stop less, Nikon and Canon's FF 300/4 are 1.44kg and 1.2kg respectively. Very unlikely for Olympus did not "optimise" their 300/2.8 to the 4/3 format. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise?
"Unwanted" light always enters your light box. Most lenses cast an image circle that is at least as big as the sensor size. This happened in the film Leicas, to the 1DS to the phone camera. Further, the size of the image circle varies depending on focusing distance. This hasn't been a problem for ages since the light box is black matt. Why do you think an extra large image circle poses a problem now?
09-03-2009, 12:23 AM #31
09-03-2009, 12:41 AM #32
09-03-2009, 01:46 AM #33
Of course unwanted light reflects bad lens design. No lens designer will design a lens specifically for more than one format. I have experimented with this-using Hasselblad Zeiss lenses on the Leica-and they were easily out-gunned by their little 35mm Leican M lenses. On the Leica M body this was easy to test. You hust mount a frosted pc of plate glass on the film plane, focus at colour test charts on the wall, and then use a 50 x magnifier to examine the frosted glass. No need to take pictures or to depend on the recording medium. It is strictly putting optics to the test, without any other inputs from sensors, films, shutter, camera shake, etc.
09-03-2009, 01:50 AM #34
70-2000 2.8 wow.. it must be bigger than rocket launcher or even cannon. or do you mean 70-200? i use 70-200 2.8 IS though.
yep I do have CPL as well and .3 & .6 cokin gradient.
EF 14.. at the moment if I buy one of those.. I will get killed instantly by my other half