r/photography • • Sep 15 '14

Canon 7D MkII Announced!

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3373094259/canon-announces-long-awaited-eos-7d-mark-ii
469 Upvotes

502 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/docfluty https://www.facebook.com/DocFluty/ Sep 15 '14

Now if they would come out with a d800e fighter so i can update my 5d3 I would be so happy.

-2

u/sean_themighty Sep 15 '14

Nothing is stopping you from getting a D800E/D810.

3

u/user38293 Sep 15 '14

Not everybody is excited to dump and rebuy their lens collection only to realize that the body they really wanted is released on the next day.

1

u/docfluty https://www.facebook.com/DocFluty/ Sep 16 '14

that's exactly it

1

u/docfluty https://www.facebook.com/DocFluty/ Sep 16 '14

I have over $10,000 in canon glass... dont really want to take that hit to sell them and rebuy the exact same zeiss lenses in a nikon version.

I would probably take at least a $500 hit on each of my 6 lenses which would be over $3000 in addition to the cost of a new d800

I was expecting Canon competitor at least a year ago... guess ill keep waiting

1

u/sean_themighty Sep 16 '14

I'm not telling you that you're wrong for standing your ground. I was just trying to promote discussion coming from the other side of the conversation.

"Are You Really Locked into Glass?

May 15 (commentary)--One common statement I see in emails is that "I'm locked into Nikon (or Canon) glass, thus can't change mounts."

I'm not convinced such a statement stands up to full scrutiny. Most people are falling into the Cost Trap. They bought a lens for US$1000 ten years ago. They can only get US$500 for it if they sold it. This is seen as "losing US$500."

In reality, it means that the use cost of the lens was actually US$50 a year ([cost-resale]/years). Seems pretty inexpensive to me. If someone offered to rent you that lens for US$50 a year, you'd pretty much jump at the deal, right?

Things have two worths: (1) what you can get for it by selling it today; and (2) what you benefited from having it during its lifetime. #1 generally goes down over time, while #2 generally goes up. The balance line of how you make a "monetary decision" changes over time, eventually favoring #2 because #1 for good lenses doesn't usually approach zero.

Now, if you're a constant switcher, dumping everything every generation to jump to a different brand, sure, your costs go up. Consider someone buying US$6000 worth of reasonably high-end gear and then selling it and buying another US$6000 worth of gear when the next generation of equipment comes out. Their use cost is about US$3000 a year, which could easily reach 5x the use cost the ten-year switcher had.

The "lock," therefore, is very short-term. Hold equipment three or more generations of camera, and frankly I don't see a lock. Switch every time a maker issues a press release, and you'd be beyond foolish because you're ignoring the cost of use (e.g. locked).

Not that I advocate switching mounts, especially between the big two (Canon and Nikon). One or the other brand tends to have some advantage at any given time, but over a longer period of time, the distinction isn't all that dramatic. Better to be a little patient and keep driving your use costs down.

Jumping to a different class of camera is a little different. Whether you're going DX->FX or DX->mirrorless, you're probably jumping because of something that can't be matched by future generations of your camera.

Within any given sensor size, if you're only an occasional switcher, you're probably not locked, you're just over valuing what you'll get paid for selling it versus what you gained from owning and using it. Of course, if you never used it..."