"TOO MUCH CAMERA" .... is there such a thing???

[Daniel Browning]

'm not at the level where I could take full advantage of a 1-series body, so it IS too much camera for me.

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.

[Brendan7]

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.

Which is what I call, "Too much camera".

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.

I agree with you on that.

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.

I'll meet you halfway with that. Good point.

[Jon Ruyle]

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 []

[waving_odd]

As far as lenses go I just got my second lens a 70-200 2.8 IS and am very ahppy with it. my other is 24-70 2.8. For now I do feel "contented" as to the "reach" and IQ these 2 lenses give me. I might look into primes in coming months.

Given what you want to shoot, I would think you should have been looking into primes sooner

I totally agree with neuroanatomist. I started with the same 2 zooms that jks has. My wife and I shoot portraits and events too. But now our 85 f/1.2L Mk II is winning (in many ways) and the 2 zooms are like secondary (for their versatility). And I might also get the 50 f/1.2L next (or should I wait for 50 f/1.2L Mk II?)

I guess I'm trying to look for equipment that will give me great images that are shot in low or poor lighting conditions.

Again, this doesn't necessarily mean 1Ds3 or 1Ds4 or 1D4, although I am also waiting for 1Ds4. Big aperture primes and creative lighting by strobes are good too.

[virtualrain]

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.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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.

[msmiley]

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).

[piiooo]

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 [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]

LOL I needed a good laugh []

[virtualrain]

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).

Absolutely... good points. Focus is obviously not important for folks who always manual focus or those who shoot nothing but landscapes with focus set on infinity. Of course, it may not even matter to some photographers if only 1 in 10 shots is sharply focused. But if consistently focused pictures are important to you and you have any OOF shots, then you can benefit from a better camera/focus system.

[Bombsight]

I bought the best camera(s) I could afford and I'm growing into it. Kinda like pants from a big brother.


If there are some featureson those camerasthat I may or may not have a need for, those features open up the window(s) to learning more about the many challenges of our passion.... provided one develops an interest in learning. Photography is like learning a foreign language. You have to develope an interest in it before you can use it in its entirety.


Step up ...and learn, I say

[Fast Glass]

Give me an 800mm lens and a 1D4 and I would have no chance against Nate, with his 40d and 400 f/5.6

Not me, I would feel perfectely comfortable with that setup. Although experience helps....[]


John.