« OT: Self-Incrimination | Main | DMD: The Panasonic GF1 camera and Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 ASPH. lens »

Tuesday, 01 September 2009


A850, without a doubt. FF, in-body stabilizing, nice viewfinder. CZ and Minolta lenses equal Canon's offerings, IMHO.

The 7D is not even in the running. Cropped (crapped?) sensor, a cost compromise since the beginning--really, how many Canon pros are using cropped cameras in comparison to the 5D/1Ds? I don't shoot birds from three time zones away or pretend to be a SI photographer sitting in the stands. And blazingly high FPS won't compensate for lack of timing, something HCB and sports photographers honed well before the advent of 8FPS.

I'm out of the arms race: an E-620, 12-60 zoom, and 25 pancake. I spent less for al of that than on either of the bodies you mention. For the images I take I get better pictures, and when I upgrade bodies in a couple of years it's going to be $500-600 since I have these lovely lenses. For heavy weather maybe I'll get a refurbed E-3 for $900 (w/warranty, by the way).

[I should add: I get better picrures with the E-620 because it's small and I actually carry the darn thing!]

7D - simply because I've already got a sizeable investment in Canon lenses, the fact that I don't want to learn a new configuration of SLR switches AND the fact I've been a Canon fan for years...

Iñaki: "You simply can not get a good UWA lens for APS-C because it does not exist [and the current Sigma Zoom does not a good job, leaving it at 16mm, just]."

It does exist. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I have it, it's an amazing lens.


The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007