Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Mallett
Thanks chaps good info.
I like my 7D and have always coveted a 1DX ???? But your description of how the display works on mirrorless is fascinating. One thing I've really not understood is the cropped frame thing. As far as I can tell the pictures I take are the ones I see in the viewfinder so does it matter whether they are cropped or not? But that is a different issue.
If the mirrorless revolution takes hold then will it make the remaining DSLRs more affordable?
|
The 1DX, used, is just about at a sensible price point but likely to shift down again when the next range topping model comes out for the Olympics next year. My understanding is that the 1DX 2 is a big advance over the original 1DX but still very expensive in the used market.
The problem of moving to full frame is that the file sizes tend to increase (but not so much with the 1DX as with some others) and the lenses are now fully utilised rather then using just the centre area of the glass. So good glass becomes a necessity.
Also the additional pixel count on the sensor, if any, does not always compensate for the loss of 'enlargement' factor. So if you are filling the frame with a lens on your 7D the same shot taken with the same lens on a full frame camera will not fill the frame. However you will probably get about the same resolution by cropping the image and the pixels tend to be larger and so offer nicer results.
Stand alone camera sales have been falling for some years. The manufacturers have been moving up market in order to try to continue to make profit and sell more expensive lenses too.
The 1DX likely requires you to buy new memory cards for decent image write speeds and if you have EF-S lenses for your 7D they won't work with the 1DX. Realistically something like a 1DX pretty much mandates the use of Canon L spec lenses to make sense of using it. Or Non-Canon equivalents of L spec. lenses.
As ever, it all depends on what you are likely to be using the images for.