Comments on: January 2010 [CR1] http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/ You gotta know Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:35:32 +0800 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Huy Pham http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-48705 Huy Pham Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:35:25 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-48705 Canon is not ripping off their customers. Their listening to their customers. First off, NUMEROUS Nikon boards posted how FF sensors are a waste of time, due to less DOF, greater zoom, and lighter equipment. FF was claimed to be a thing of the past. Like Medium Format Sensors. They ripped on Canon offering FF sensors and Nikon just didn't need them. Where are these posters now? Well, those benefits are exactly why a 1.3x sensor exists. There are advantages to a smaller sensor. The 1D customer usually doesn't make a print larger than 13"x19" Because of that, Canon decided to shrink their sensor and increase pixel density to give them more reach. Now that 70-200 on a 1D is actually a 91-260. Compared to the Nikon D3 which is still a 70-200. The Canon photographer will have a tighter zoom and less cropping to do and will get a sharper sports picture than the D3 equipped photographer. Why not use a 7D/50D or D300S? Well, they don't have the same autofocus or weather sealing. The D3 or 1D series camera are VERY tough. It's not why does canon offer a 1.3x sensor. It's why doesn't Nikon? You get better noise performance than a 1.6x sensor and more reach+DOF than a full frame. Win-Win for a sports photographer. It's not like it matters. The weakest component of any photography system is the one behind the viewfinder. Both Nikon and Canon make systems that are way better than any of us can shoot anyway. Too much talking. Going out to photograph something. That's a better use of my time. Canon is not ripping off their customers. Their listening to their customers.

First off, NUMEROUS Nikon boards posted how FF sensors are a waste of time, due to less DOF, greater zoom, and lighter equipment. FF was claimed to be a thing of the past. Like Medium Format Sensors. They ripped on Canon offering FF sensors and Nikon just didn’t need them. Where are these posters now? Well, those benefits are exactly why a 1.3x sensor exists.

There are advantages to a smaller sensor. The 1D customer usually doesn’t make a print larger than 13″x19″ Because of that, Canon decided to shrink their sensor and increase pixel density to give them more reach. Now that 70-200 on a 1D is actually a 91-260. Compared to the Nikon D3 which is still a 70-200. The Canon photographer will have a tighter zoom and less cropping to do and will get a sharper sports picture than the D3 equipped photographer. Why not use a 7D/50D or D300S? Well, they don’t have the same autofocus or weather sealing. The D3 or 1D series camera are VERY tough.

It’s not why does canon offer a 1.3x sensor. It’s why doesn’t Nikon? You get better noise performance than a 1.6x sensor and more reach+DOF than a full frame. Win-Win for a sports photographer.

It’s not like it matters. The weakest component of any photography system is the one behind the viewfinder. Both Nikon and Canon make systems that are way better than any of us can shoot anyway. Too much talking. Going out to photograph something. That’s a better use of my time.

]]> By: Yury http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-34811 Yury Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:23:50 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-34811 Kevin, that's a good maths you've done here! Unfortunately you're right, in 2009 Nikon is rocking the place. Can anyone tell me by the way, why would Canon have 1.6, 1.3 and a FF sensors... when Nikon is offering either 1.6 budget DSLRs or professional FFs... So today I can buy D3s for the same price as 1D MarkIV But Nikon is a FF DSLR, and Canon would give a 1.3 crop sensor. Doesn't it sound like a ripoff from Canon to you? Kevin, that’s a good maths you’ve done here! Unfortunately you’re right, in 2009 Nikon is rocking the place.
Can anyone tell me by the way, why would Canon have 1.6, 1.3 and a FF sensors… when Nikon is offering either 1.6 budget DSLRs or professional FFs…
So today I can buy D3s for the same price as 1D MarkIV
But Nikon is a FF DSLR, and Canon would give a 1.3 crop sensor.
Doesn’t it sound like a ripoff from Canon to you?

]]> By: Kevin http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-32769 Kevin Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:24:34 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-32769 And then Nikon D4 = Canon Scratching heads again Nikon D4x = Canon we have no answer. I'm still a believer that megapixels mean nothing especially when you don't need them. I can make near identical prints with a 12mp sensor than I can with a 24mp sensor. And then

Nikon D4 = Canon Scratching heads again
Nikon D4x = Canon we have no answer.

I’m still a believer that megapixels mean nothing especially when you don’t need them. I can make near identical prints with a 12mp sensor than I can with a 24mp sensor.

]]> By: ALEK http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-32751 ALEK Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:08:31 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-32751 1dm4 = Runtime-Error 1dsm4= CANON SALVATION 1dm4 = Runtime-Error
1dsm4= CANON SALVATION

]]> By: jweu http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-32670 jweu Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:50:56 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-32670 The MTF from Nikon are very impressive, Canon has to improve the lenses 24-70 F/2.8 and 70-200 F/2.8 http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_70-200mmf_28g_vr2/index.htm http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af_zoom24-85mmf_28-4d_if/index.htm The MTF from Nikon are very impressive, Canon has to improve the lenses 24-70 F/2.8 and 70-200 F/2.8

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_70-200mmf_28g_vr2/index.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af_zoom24-85mmf_28-4d_if/index.htm

]]> By: Paul Smith Shoes http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-32412 Paul Smith Shoes Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:05:44 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-32412 Many people have alos become fans of <a href="http://www.newpaulsmith.com/paul-smith-shoes-c-518.html" rel="nofollow">Paul Smith Shoes</a> since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like <a href="http://www.newpaulsmith.com/paul-smith-wallets-c-521.html" rel="nofollow"> Paul Smith Wallets </a> and <a <a href="http://www.newpaulsmith.com/paul-smith-belt-multi-stripe-100-leather-100-pewter- buckle-p-21559.html">Paul Smith Belts</a>,It designs very good. Many people have alos become fans of Paul Smith Shoes since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like Paul Smith Wallets and <a Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.

]]> By: aiello http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-32322 aiello Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:59:42 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-32322 I was told not too buy the Canon Mark 5D II because canon was releasing a new 5D in January to compete with the new Nikon ISO capabilities. Has any one heard this or have any details??? I was told not too buy the Canon Mark 5D II because canon was releasing a new 5D in January to compete with the new Nikon ISO capabilities. Has any one heard this or have any details???

]]> By: Freeze_XJ http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-32284 Freeze_XJ Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:22:46 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-32284 Oh yes it is imperative... Imagine the outcry of the public at large when a lens does NOT have IS... That instantly makes it a bad one (or so is claimed). Imagined value is what sells, real value is just nice. Oh yes it is imperative… Imagine the outcry of the public at large when a lens does NOT have IS… That instantly makes it a bad one (or so is claimed). Imagined value is what sells, real value is just nice.

]]> By: Kevin http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-32283 Kevin Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:48:19 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-32283 What are you smoking? The A900 is a sweet camera. Have you ever used it? I have, the quality at ISO 100-400 is outstanding, plus you've got some of the best glass in the world! I shoot with Canon but you've got to give respect where its due. What are you smoking? The A900 is a sweet camera. Have you ever used it? I have, the quality at ISO 100-400 is outstanding, plus you’ve got some of the best glass in the world! I shoot with Canon but you’ve got to give respect where its due.

]]> By: ossme http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-32269 ossme Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:15:43 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-32269 agreed. agreed.

]]> By: ossme http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-32267 ossme Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:13:00 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-32267 If I would wish for anything in my 5d mark II. It would be to have a good focus system like the 7d and an 5fps speed. Having said that, none is critical for my work. I don't think a 5d mark III will be coming anytime soon. If I would wish for anything in my 5d mark II. It would be to have a good focus system like the 7d and an 5fps speed. Having said that, none is critical for my work. I don’t think a 5d mark III will be coming anytime soon.

]]> By: Dave http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-32263 Dave Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:49:00 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-32263 I agree, I will only buy if it has IS I have the 14LII, 24LII, 35L and 85L II...wish they all had IS too but Canon seems to have difficulty putting IS in fast primes :( hope they find a way soon as it will increase their usefulness incredibly I agree, I will only buy if it has IS

I have the 14LII, 24LII, 35L and 85L II…wish they all had IS too but Canon seems to have difficulty putting IS in fast primes :( hope they find a way soon as it will increase their usefulness incredibly

]]> By: Gael http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-32247 Gael Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:01:22 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-32247 I am not surprised of the news 1D and I think that there will also be a new "5D" "sooner than we would have expected" which be like the 7D but fullframe. When the 5d markII went out it was obvious it was an "unfinished" product (I think it was only to sell the remaining all parts in stock). I am not surprised of the news 1D and I think that there will also be a new “5D” “sooner than we would have expected” which be like the 7D but fullframe. When the 5d markII went out it was obvious it was an “unfinished” product (I think it was only to sell the remaining all parts in stock).

]]> By: Guno Gerk http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/january-2010-cr1/comment-page-1/#comment-32234 Guno Gerk Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:49:39 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=3047#comment-32234 Hi everyone, do you think the 135mm f2 L is an amazing lens that Smashes the 70-200 (all versions) in terms of sharpness, color, bokeh, focus speed, build quality, etc. My other question is, would I be able to obtain the 70-200's range easily with the 135 if I'm not really confined to tight spaces, I shoot closeups and full body shots in huge forests, cities, and beaches. Hi everyone, do you think the 135mm f2 L is an amazing lens that Smashes the 70-200 (all versions) in terms of sharpness, color, bokeh, focus speed, build quality, etc.

My other question is, would I be able to obtain the 70-200′s range easily with the 135 if I’m not really confined to tight spaces, I shoot closeups and full body shots in huge forests, cities, and beaches.

]]>