If only I didn't have to get permission off the wife to buy ANYTHING moderately expensive :neutral_face:

Great price. You could pay 50% and then £54 per month on 12 Months payment

August has the announcement of the 5D Mark IV so prices should be falling soon.

Great price,heat

Rumours say October. What have you heard?

September Photokina 6d mark II
Next year 5D IV

So so tempted ...... decisions decisions

The lack of wifi makes me hold off.

That's what makes it worse :neutral_face:

If only I didn't have to get permission off the wife to buy ANYTHING moderately expensive :neutral_face:

im no where near a professional photographer but l love taking photos especially of nature
does it worth buying this??
what lens would be very good in a range of £400-500 mark please,
thanks for your advice

Which eyefi card is best? Are they better than the other brands of wifi SD?

Well .... there's only 1 left now :stuck_out_tongue:

​thanks for your reply does this fit

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-70-200mm-4-0-USM-Lens/dp/B00005QF6T/?tag=hotukdeals03-21

​thanka for your reply does this lens fit
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-70-200mm-4-0-USM-Lens/dp/B00005QF6T/?tag=hotukdeals03-21

in the early days, money is better spent on glass than on a body. lenses keep value (especially if you get a good value grey one or lightly used near mint one - and many people buy expensive lenses then sell them on when they realise they're not getting much use of it).
for example, the popular portrait lens 135mm is 20 years old and pre-dates the first consumer canon DSLR (the 3.1MP D30) by 4 years. Pull your 135 out today and you'll still get beautiful results, envious eyes and a good return if you sell it. Pull out a D30 and you'll only attract retro collectors!
it depends on what sort of nature you're shooting, but macro lenses or a nice telephoto (70-200 or 100-400) would be good. check out photography you like on sites like flickr and you should be able to see exif data on many shots including what body, lens and settings were used.
although gear is my weakness (i can't believe what I paid for my 100-400 considering how much use i've had from it!!), I've been wowed by some amazing shots on mediocre gear e.g. 400D with kit lens.

Won't a PENTAX SLR/DSLR suffice for the job of non-professional Photographer taking semi-professional photographs of one form or another?, or am I missing something ...

Have a 7D mk ii on order. No lense as yet - budget of £500 for two lenses. Can anybody recommended for me? Some wildlife, aviation photography and general landscape stuff.

Someone mentioned it earlier, the 70-200mm f4l is a great lens. You can pick one up from Amazon Warehouse for slightly under £400. That'll cover you for wildlife and aviation.

Out of Stock. "order now for delivery in 5-6 days".

Interesting posts here. I only use a cheap Canon which I got from the link on here some months ago. I use Photoshop 6 Pro to "tidy up / improve" my pictures. If you are just using them to make slideshows for the TV or just a few prints, can one really see a 50 times improvement? Surely the light/background makes more difference. In the good old film days I spent quite a lot on a Canon A1, and never felt it was 10 times better than my Olympus trip. Does anyone agree that expensive cameras/HIFI/Computers/TVs can actually be too good for ordinary use?

Does this camera take better photos than an iPhone 6S?

Sorry but no - a full frame camera gives you a much shallower DoF for a given f-stop and lets in more light, this is just basic physics and there are quite a number of scenarios where this will produce better photos.
This camera is a great and powerful tool, you just have to know how to use it.

Yes, but no Facebook app yet

Seriously?

Its an incorrect price on their website, all 5D MKIII orders will be cancelled. Ouch!

1) Why Pentax? Why not other Canon, Nikon DSLRs or Sony DSLTs?

2) Are you referring only to Pentax's crop-sensor bodies or the full-frame/medium format bodies. If it's the latter there are benefits such as a more pronounced depth of field at the same aperture over a crop-sensor body. Generally, crop-sensor bodies have less dynamic range and inferior low-light performance.

In my view, whether you are "professional" or not should not be a deciding factor when buying a camera. It's whether you are likely to make good use of a camera's purported benefits over another camera that should.

I think the word "professional" with people is a clumsy label that is associated with being superior. It only means the photographer makes money from their photos but whether they're any good is debatable. I've seen photos taken by amateurs that I think are better than those taken by "professionals."

Now back up to £2,175

No, I certainly don't agree. "Ordinary use" varies from person to person anyway.
A less expensive camera would neither be quick nor consistent enough for what I usually shoot. Full frame offers more dynamic range, better low light performance and a more pronounced depth of field at a given aperture.
My computer is used for video and photo processing as well as gaming so a cheap one won't be much good to me.

If you buy an expensve product such as a camera or computer that you perceive as overkill, that is more likely to be a reflection of your inability to make good use of it or profligate spending on your part than the product being "too good".

Heat added. Didn't go for this one, but managed to get the 7d mkii before they sent the prices back up.

No. Not in your case. Please stick to your iPhone. Let the pro's continue their discussion here.

Ordered last night and just received a very polite email explaining it was a misprice and that they will not be able to fulfil my order. Have also given me a £20 voucher for my troubles.... oh well, at least i gave it a go.

Special thanks to "pavel76" for the original post

Thanks for all the expert comment. I am not a pro, and what would be fascinating to see is this:
The same photo taken on a cheap Canon - around £80, and a Pro camera outfit at around £2000. Would it possible to see the difference on a website, or 6 by 4 print on a normal inkjet. The quality of many mass produced photos done by firms looks very poor even to my eyes. How is a decent print produced?
How do the Pros actually use their photos? I fully accept that they are better, but what can they be used for? Would the ordinary person realise the difference? I used to work in the magazine printing industry, but the print market has been reduced by the Web. The fall in sales has killed nearly all the famous colour printers of the 80s and 90s.

You seem to assume that the size of the print alone will hide the differences. That's not the case, particularly with a reasonably skilled photographer. The layman can definitely see the difference when a well-specified and onstensibly more expensive camera is used. If prints come out poorly, it may be a reflection of a poor quality printer, poor colour calibration between the camera/computer and the printer or it could be the sign of a photographer who doesn't make best use of their gear.

If you use cheap camera to take a photo of a subject with its background a fair distance behind, you're unlikely to get a shallow enough depth of field to make the subject stand out - you probably won't have the manual control to control your aperture and the sensor will be so small that even with a wide aperture, your DoF won't be that prononced. With a high-end DSLR, of course depeneding on the lens, it's more likely that you can get a shallow DoF by virtue of the larger sensor and having manual control of your aperture.

Especially with sports photography, a cheap camera may be able to capture that special moment but it requires much more preparation in terms of timing and in some cases, random chance acting in your favour but most of the time it's simply not consistent enough because of slower and less accurate autofocus and you usually only get one or two chances. A high-end DSLR will have vastly superior autofocus in terms of speed and accuracy, even more so with a good lens in front of the body.

In sports where you're not close to the players, it's all well and good that the cheap camera may have an optical zoom but A) I reckon the zoom won't go very far and B) even if it did, the aperture would be so small that image quality will be severely compromised - ISO will almost certainly be pushed up to compensate for the lack of light, increasing the likelihood of noisy, grainy images. If you're talking about cheap camera with digital zoom, expect image quality to be worse. With a DSLR, you can buy lenses that reach far enough without image quality being sacrificed.

If you're doing a panning shot with a slowish shutter speed to freeze the subject and create motion blur on the background, you probably won't have full manual or shutter priority on a cheap camera so getting the effect won't be as easy as on a high-end DSLR, even if the cheap camera's autofocus were quick enough.

As you seem to have put it, the word "pros" is a clumsy abstract term that puts every professional photographer in a pigeonhole despite a lot of profesionals specialising in a particular genre. For example, a high street family portrait photographer probably won't use their photos the same way that a sports photographer will.

I wouldn't say the internet itself killed the printing industry, I'd put that down more to how photography has become digitised as well as demand for instant news putting film photography at a disadvantage.

Did everyone's 5d order get cancelled for this ?

Thanks InkBlotTest for your interesting comments.

Yes,

Awesome