12 hours ago
 |
Tomas Cermak
Lives in
Okazaki, Japan
Works as a
programmer
Has a website at
http://www.pbase.com/tomas_cermak
Joined on
Sep 17, 2003
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Panasonicus: The Canon 70-200mm Mk 2 is $2199. The Panny is $1499. Cheaper and lighter but really not that much cheaper given that the Canon is L quality. I think Panasonic are overpriced at this level. I have a G3 with the MIJ 14-45mm and 45-200mm which are cheapos (compared with the constant 2.8's) but great quality. I do not plan to buy these high end micro-2/3rds lenses and if I was that serious about equipment I would upscale back to a full sized Canon and the L lenses. In fact, the Canon 70-200mm L f4 (closer to the Panny than the 2.8) is $1239 or cheaper than the Panasonic. Bottom line: Panasonic are overpricing themselves and they will kill off any serious photographers thinking about making the switch.
Fantastic reply. I can not agree more. I mean also I think that this lens is expensive but Panasonic is setting the price. Take it or leave it. Nobody forces us to buy this lens, right?
Tom Caldwell: Has Canon gone off on some crazy course of it's own on video? Surely I appreciate the technical virtuosity and my "oh my gee whizz" product, but I have a stack of Canon EF glass and I actually have no need for video. So where to now for the plebs that want to see a smaller, evf version of the EF mount camera with video only for emergencies.
Or are Canon doing "a Leica" and simply grandstanding their technical expertise by painting themself into the nice, but unobtainable, corner?
I run to something more than a Rebel but am only hanging about because the EOS mount locks in my investment.
Videographers (all "fifty" of them) are going nuts about it of course.
I feel the same. If Canon will not change the course, I will probably switch the boat even if I have to sell the lenses.....
Lu Heng: this is funny how many people are concern about pixels, high ISO etc., making a war between canon, nikon, sony.. name it. as if it is a substitute of actual photography. as if the one and only available light is a candlelight and they "desperately must" print huge billboards from every shot they take.
supposed to be that way?
boring.
100% agree. But sadly it was this way and it will be. To be honest, I also complain sometimes. It`s natural, people wants best for the money, even if it`s not logical anymore....