Originally Posted by jks
I don't think so. If someone has the disposable income, I encourage them to buy as much camera as they want. If camera sales were restricted to only the bare minimum of what people needed, then the market would be small and there would be little money for R&D, and cameras would be very expensive.
This is probably the first time I will disagree with you, Daniel.If I wanted to, I could probably find enough dough to buy a 1D Mark IV in the next couple of months. But I'm not doing that because I'm rather new (not a complete noob, but not an expert by any means) to SLR photography and being somewhat unskilled a pro camera wouldn't be for me. I am saying that I'm not at the level where I could take full advantage of a 1-series body, so it IS too much camera for me. It's weather-sealed, but I'm not standing in a blizzard (well, today I am, we're getting 20'' of snow!) on a cliff four days a week. It shoots 10fps, which is awesome, but my 7D shoots 8fps and honestly I doubt I could use the difference to my advantage. I would pay extra cash for all of those features that I wouldn't be able to exploit because of my experience. a 1D would be too much camera for me IMO. It is for others too.
my 2¢
brendan
To me, the degree to which the camera's is utilized doesn't enter into it. jks could shoot the school programs with a digicam, a used 20D, a 7D, or a 1D4. Each option is more expensive than the last. The more the camera, the less its features are utilized. But even so, the resulting photos will be better. The 1D4 will focus faster, have less noise, and achieve more accurate focus than any of the other options. For most people, improvements in just autofocus and noise will not be worth spending $3,000 over the 7D, or $4500 over a used 400D. But if the money is no problem, then I say go for it.
Let's take another example. Someone with huge disposable income is trying to decide which 50mm prime to buy. Their needs are very simple. All they want is something with a nice manual focus ring and the Canon brand. They don't care about fast f-numbers (they only use f/2.8), they don't care about bokeh, autofocus, flare, or anything else.
Based on those requirements, they should get the 50mm f/1.2. Of course, they wont take advantage of any of the features that make it cost $1500: the fast f-number, bokeh, autofocus performance, flare, etc. They're only using it to get the nice manual focus ring. Of course, they could adapt an old $300 Nikon 50mm lens that would have a manual focus ring that is just as good. But they want Canon brand. They could get the $100 Canon 50mm f/1.8. It would be just as sharp as the f/1.2 when both are stopped down to f/2.8. But it has a terrible focus ring.
So the only time I think that a camera is "too much" is when the camera causes actual disadvantages, such as being too heavy or bulky.
That said, most people do not have unlimited disposable income. So instead of worrying about how much camera is too much, we try to get the most value for our dollar. In your case, you could afford the 1D4, and it would provide you with better results than your 7D, but not enough extra value to make it worth paying $3300 more. Same with me.
Which is what I call, "Too much camera".
I agree with you on that.
I'll meet you halfway with that. Good point.
I agree.
In my mind, the #1 job the camera must do correctly is focus. Every
other feature in a camera is superfluous to it's ability to focus
sharply. Within limits, nearly everything else is within your control
either at the time of capture or can be addressed in post production.
Not surprisingly, the focus system improves with every step-up in
camera. Hence, in my opinion, you should always own the best camera
(with the best focus system) you can afford. Period.
I happen to agree with you on the importance of focus, but other people have more important factors (say they focus manually).
...And let's remember that since we are using the EOS system, focus performance enters the domain of the lens as well; you will have to have lenses with fast and/or accurate focus motors to go with your state-of-the-art-focusing body (again, if focus performance is important to you).
Too, much, camera.
Strange. I've seen each of those words before, but when you string them together like that I just can't think what it means []
LOL I needed a good laugh []
It looks like English, but I am not grokking.
For low light and subjects that are not moving fast, a 1 series body is a bit of overkill. You will have to use lenses nearly wide open, so a camera with good high ISO performance will help, as well as fast prime lenses. I always pick my 5D MK II over my 1D MK III for that type of photography.
I've found that where flash is not allowed, and there is some movement, a fairly fast shutter speed really helps to get sharp images. My 40D struggled to get good images in low light with F:/2.8 lenses.
When I replaced it with a 5D MK II, It was a big help, but I gave up on zooms and started using primes like the 50mm F:/1.4, 85mm F:/1.8, and 135mm F:/2 and even then, I just set ISO 3200 and 1/320 sec shutter speed, and let the camera set the aperture, and it is pretty wide as you would expect. I'm looking to get a fast 24mm lens next, and perhaps the 35 L as well. Inextreme low light, the 5D focuses very well, where the 1D MK III won't focus at all.
Outdoors or areaswith reasonably good light is a different story. There, the flexibility of a zoom is a big help, and where fast focusing is needed, the 1D shines.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote