fxdonny

<p>I'm just aware of the news recently. RIP Nadine, and thank you so very much for your contributions here.</p>

<p>Best price for 5D2 online is 1529, while for 6D is 1899. For around 300 differences, I will definitely go with 6D</p>

<p>I'm also in favor of 135 L f/2. Also, plus additional teleconverter 1.4, it would serve as a 190 f/2.8 lens as well (not sacrificing too much on the aperture). Total cost, around $1000 or less.. (especially when bought used).</p>

<p>The 3 is great, except for weddings :). It's mirror slap is indeed loud. It's features, however, are great. For the mirror slap, I much prefer the 1n or 1v over 3. Elan 7 is much better in that regard.</p>

<p>It is my personal opinion that Canon has been sleeping on their profits all too long and not paying attention to their competitors.. They were far ahead not too long ago, but now.. I just hope that they won't be like the next blackberry smartphone :) like some one said on FM forum. If I were to start now, I would definitely go the Nikon way.</p>

<p>The problem with G2 is the limited lens selection and I also prefer the Canon sensor..</p>

<p>I would luv to have a leica like Canon, even if it means to have a totally new design, as long as they don't sell it with Leica prices. To me, smaller camera (with APS-C sensor) is a dream, if they can make it smaller than Rebel. Remember Canon G-III? Like some people said, if they can make them as about the same size as G11, it would be sweet... :)</p><div></div>

<p>T21 is very handy for travelling > small and light > very important to some of us.</p>

<p>It depends of what kind of shootings that you will do. If you shoot quite a bit of moving subjects in low lights, I would go with the Canon lens due to the AF capability, coupled with USM and IS.</p>

<p>I would side with Dan on film issue. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that you go to film route since cost it's an issue, otherwise, you might have opted for 7D or 5DMk II since you mentioned HD. If that is the case, the cost of developing film can add up quickly, especially nowadays, since less and less lab are offering the service. To save the cost, one might as well pick up a Rebel DSLR, 20D or 30D or 40D plus a lens. If you like 35mm focal length on full frame, you might want to try 24mm f/2.8 on crop sensor. Not the same, but close.<br>

In short, going to film route doesn't make sense to me, especially in your case.</p>

<p>I still want, and hope, Canon 28/1.8 and 35/2 get upgraded by Canon with improved USM, or in the case of the 35mm, with USM, and with better glass quality (as close as possible to the L quality), but maintaining the same sizes (NOT larger sizes) of the old ones... :)</p>

<p>The L lenses are much more expensive due purely to one reason alone: "bragging rights".<br />Kid aside, I would say, it's more like comparing Honda (such as Honda Civic) to Acura (Acura TSX). Both made by the same company, different in quality..</p>

<p>Daniel, if you'are shooting with 50D or any other crop sensor camera, I would suggest to go the route of 17-55 IS. Not only that it has wider focal range than 16-35, but it also has IS, which at times can be very useful. Some people will suggest 16-35, in case you upgrade to FF in the near future, but to me, the present time is most important. Maximize the use of the lens now, and if in the future you upgrade to FF, just sell the lens/exchange it. The price of used Canon lenses are holding up pretty well, so most likely your loss will be minimum. The 17-55 is as sharp as 16-35 can be, even though 17-55 is not an L lens.</p>

<p>I've personally noticed that in the US, actually prices has been steadily holding up actually since last year. Last year around the release of 5D Mark II, I found a bunch that were selling aroung $1000, however, prices went a bit up after new year, I don't know why, and it's been hovering around $1200-$1500. Lately, it's been down a bit though.</p>

<p>No you're not crazy, seriously :). If not for the weight, I will consider the 1DIIN myself</p>

<p>IMO, it all comes down to a simple economic rule demand and supply. Pricing is very subjective and can varies due to so many reasons. However, the bottom line is, if we charge $2000 or $5000 but have no client, and if ourlives depend on the business, we might have to re-visit our pricing structure in order to survive. On the other hand, if we charge $500 and receive more clients than we can handle, we will most likely increase our prices to weed some out. If we charge $3000 and we have enough clients, then what's the complaint? All in all, photography,especially wedding photography, has become so competitive since the arrival of digital cameras. There is almost no entry barrier to wedding photography. Who wins? Of course customers, since they now have so many to choose from.. whether it's bad or good. Expensive does NOT guarantee good results, and cheap, does NOT guarantee bad results.. and let's not forget, photography is art, and art, IMO, is very subjective.. A technically good photo may not necessarily be an artistically good photo, and vice versa.<br>

Another example is restaurant. Expensive does not guarantee good food, and cheap does not guarantee bad food.. In the end, like any other business, everybody try to compete, some win, some lose.. Having been in the business for so long does not guarantee survival of the future.</p>

<p>I found that the color rendering of the L is better (more pleasing to the eyes) than the prime, straight out from the camera.</p>

<p>Buying $1000 worth of a lens is not exactly on tight budget, but these 2 lenses are 2 different animals. You've got to know what you need it for, then you can decide which one to buy. Or buy the 70-200 non IS plus 100 macro non IS for $1000</p>

<p>Instead of ebay, try this website, fredmiranda, or potn buy and sell website forum. I did have the lens and sold it when I sold my 20D. I now use fullframe 5D and own 16-35mm. I don't know about other people, but I did sell it because I don't have APS-C sensor camera anymore. I love the perspective from 10-22 on crop and 16-35 on FF.</p>

<p>I would get the 7D. Eventhough 50D is a lot more camera than 400D, 7D has a significant improvement over 7D. Upgrading to 5D2 will cost you more than the price of the camera (since you will also need to re-shuffle your lens needs due to the difference in FOV). If 7D is still too expensive as of now, I would wait and get by with your current set up until I can afford 7D comfortably. But if you have an itch to buy now, then get the 50D.</p>

<p>Not to mention that you probably need to upgrade your computer as well. Going from 20D (8mp) to 5DII (21mp) is quite a jump. Unless you already have upgraded your computer, you might factor the cost of this computer upgrade as well</p>

<p>O.K. now I understand, and thanks Matt..</p>

<p>Matt, I thought the Nikon can also be triggered with any flash other than Nikon directly, without using the goodies that you mentioned above? </p>

<p>Why change your current set up if you're not even sure if you need to do it. IMO, your current set up is enough for you to experience the type of shooting that you would like to do. Some people like wide angle and some people don't. The same goes for when comparing <strong>Tamron SP AF 28-75mm 1:2.8 SP XR Di LD </strong>to <strong>Canon 24-70 f2,8L USM</strong>. Why would you want to change your Tamron to Canon, if you're satisfied with it.. Worth it or not.. who knows.. Some people are very satisfied with Tamron, and some others not. For me personally, no Tamron can match Canon USM when it comes to AF.. and this alone, is worth it for me, but some others might disagree. </p>

<p>I will get the T1i, especially for the added resolution + HD video capabilities, not to mention other latest technologies on T1i. . I think you've been reading too much information re. noise.</p>