Messages

451

EOS Bodies / Re: Something Coming March 1?

« on: February 16, 2011, 06:33:38 PM »

It's been said before, but I can't help thinking that Canon would be better releasing the '1Ds Mk4' and '5D Mk3' simultaneously, as they are now expected to be released so close to each other.  This would avoid people putting off a purchase of the 1Ds Mk4 to see what the 5D Mk3 offered, if the former were released first and people fed of waiting for the '1Ds Mk4' settling for the 5D Mk3 if it is released first. 

452

Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-60 f/2.8 IS [CR1]

« on: February 12, 2011, 04:48:16 AM »

If this lens does ever get released, you can bet your life it will be 30% more expensive than the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. 

The way that Canon will 'justify' this is by increasing prices across the board with each new lens; so the 24-70 f/2.8L replacement will gain at least 30% (the Nikkor 24-70 is already about 25% more and the Sony/CZ 24-70 is over 35% more expensive), a future 24-105L replacement will do the same.  This will maintain the relative price points of these lenses. 

Are Canon (and their competitors) justified in doing this? Well, there is inflation as well as R&D costs to cover and making all these super sharp lenses with multiple exotic elements is going to push up costs.  Perhaps it is us demanding more (MOAR) and then moaning when they ask us to pay for it, who are being unreasonable?

I baulked at the cost of the 17-55 f/2.8 until Sigma brought out their new 17-50 f/2.8; I realised that despite only having micro-USM it was not that much cheaper.  Clearly Canon is charging a premium for their brand name on a lens (over third-party offerings), but Sigma it seems, had to compromise on micro-USM to produce a lower cost lens than the Canon.  Maybe it is not possible to produce a 17-55mm  f/2.8 USM lens at significantly less than the current price; we should not expect a new lens to cost less. 

(P.S. I do not work for Canon or any of its subsidiaries!)

453

Lenses / Re: Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS

« on: February 10, 2011, 07:30:41 PM »

IMHO, two of these lenses are almost certainly going to happen in the next couple of years, these are:

EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM
EF 35mm f/1.4 L II USM

I don't think I'm being controversial there. Three others are 'maybe's:

EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L IS II USM (depending on how successful the strategy to split the market between the  the 70-300L and 200-400L is)
EF 135mm f/1.8 L IS USM (is IS possible on such a fast aperture FF lens? How many would pay the premium over the existing version?)
EF 50mm f/1.2 L II USM (current version is still a bit new for a prime)

I don't think that we'll see three of the other suggestions: when was the last time that Canon released a non-L EF prime (100mm Macro f/2.8 USM in 2000, unless anyone name a more recent example)?  Come to think of it, when was the last time Canon released a non-L EF zoom (70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM in 2005, ditto above caveat)?

EF 50mm f/1.4 II USM
EF 35mm f/1.4 L II USM
EF 28mm f/1.8 II USM

It does seem that from now on it will be either L-grade EF lenses, EF-S lenses or live with the back catalogue. 

Unfocused thinks that the problem is EF-S zoom lens overlap, I disagree.  There were plenty of overlaps in the low to mid market EF film era lenses -the market for them was big enough; EF-S lenses are the modern equivalent of these.  The real problem with the EF-S line-up is the lack of specialist lenses and gaps in the primes that can only be filled with old, sub-par EF primes, or with expensive and heavy L glass.  The trap that Canon (as well as Nikon and, to a lesser extent, Sony) is caught in, is that the people who would be in the market for the more expensive EF-S offerings, are also the people who believe that they may soon want to go full frame. 

Finally, does the high demand for a new EF 35mm and EF 28mm mean that there is a demand for a small, light and inexpensive wide angle for full frame?  Or can it be lumped together with those who are asking for a EF-S 30mm f/1.4 Macro (!) USM (surely a bit of a conflicting set of requirements) to show the desire for a fast prime that is 'normal'  on APS-C (perhaps with the potential to be the former, if the owner ever decides to move to full frame)? 

Sorry for the long post!

454

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Development Announced

« on: February 07, 2011, 06:11:23 PM »

People are dreaming when they suggest this may be less expensive than the equivalent Nikon (it will almost certainly be more); this is not the successor to the 100-400mm L, it is in a completely different class.  Some people seem to think that the historic lower price of Canon lenses will continue, but recent history shows that Canon is now happy to price their glass higher than Nikon (look at the new 70-200 f/2.8s). 

455

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon 320EX & 270EX II Announced

« on: February 07, 2011, 03:41:12 PM »

The price of the 320EX seems a bit steep compared to the 480EX (I'm presuming that it's meant to fit between the 270EX and 480EX).  Does this mean that the 480EX is about to see a price rise, or is the RRP simply way above what the eventual street price will be?

456

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Development Announced

« on: February 07, 2011, 03:37:01 PM »

OK, time to indulge my pet hypothesis... The next camera in the 1D line will be full frame. 

What am I basing this on? First, Canon are touting how light the new 400mm f/2.8L IS II is (perfect if your moving from a 1D + 300mm f/2.8 to a full frame camera), now the long asked for 200-400mm will have a built in teleconverter. 

Well, it's an idea!

457

Lenses / Re: Canon 400 f/5.6L IS in April? [CR1]

« on: February 05, 2011, 08:11:02 PM »

I can't see that a replacement for the 400L is a priority for Canon, its main users seem to be birders on a budget as it is nowhere near as flexible as the 100-400L.   A replacement for the latter would have far broader appeal and a modern zoom design could narrow the image quality gap between the prime and the zoom.  A 500mm f/5.6L would be a different matter. 

458

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless [CR1]

« on: February 04, 2011, 01:16:35 PM »

I agree with your assessment: just another attention seeker fishing in the hope of a bite. 

Why do people bother with this sort of thing? It does amaze me how someone can get a thrill out of unimaginative, well... Lying is what it boils down to.  True hoaxes should have an entertainment factor that the people who are hoaxed can actually enjoy when the truth is revealed. 

Having said all this, I'm not entirely sure if some of what CR gets sent isn't deliberate mis-information and market research from Canon itself, partly to muddy the waters in case there is a real leak and also to gauge reaction to proposed specifications of future models (probably a long way off). 

P.S. I had a go on someone's NEX5 today: beautifully built, but the 18-55mm is too big for the body and the controls were a bit fiddly.  The first criticism would be alleviated with a couple more primes; as for the second, I'm sure one could get used to it.  It's a shame that Sony didn't put just one or two more buttons on the body, there's plenty of 'real estate' available. 

459

EOS Bodies / Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]

« on: January 27, 2011, 01:34:10 PM »

Well, in the case of a 36x36mm sensor, the manufacturing cost would go up at least 50% over current FF sensors (aside from R&D and other associated costs).  And a 43.3x43.3mm sensor would be at least 116% more costly.

I haven't bothered checking your calculations (!), but whatever the figure I'd have to agree. 

Sensor size is very strongly correlated with price; sure it may be technically possible to do multiple aspect ratios with the new 1Ds (a la GH2), but it's all irrelevant unless the market is willing to pay a premium price for this.  Are pros really demanding multiple aspect ratios?

All we've heard so far is doubts that the 1Ds series can remain viable at its current price point.  Will adding even more expense make it more compelling, or simply drive recession hit pros to cheaper options?

460

EOS Bodies / Re: “1Dsq” & 3D [CR1]

« on: January 26, 2011, 04:50:01 PM »

It sounds like every idiot is trying to jump onto the bandwagon.  I guess this is how certain 'sources' imporve their CR# ratings: wait until you think an announcement might be close then cover off a base with a made up (but logical) set of specifications; if you're close you instantly improve to CR2 or CR3, if not try again next time from a different email address. 

Still, it keeps us amused-so I guess we're really the biggest idiots. 

461

Lenses / Re: New L Primes

« on: January 23, 2011, 02:54:01 PM »

Would it not be possible to replace both the 200mm f/2.8L USM and the 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM, with a 200mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM?

462

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV & 5D3 Thoughts & Lens Patent

« on: January 21, 2011, 05:59:07 PM »

At this point it basically sucks to try to run and read a Canon rumors blog. Months upon months of conflicting rumors with no real news. Canon needs to get back in the game with some bodies and lenses. Not the ones already announced a half year ago, those don't count.

You look at the nikon and 43 rumors sites and there is alway interesting stuff going on there. Canon = meh. I don't blame Craig, but when there is nothing to report or the stuff that does get reported is constantly falling prey to contradictions you got to take note.

Hopefully something will come out soon that isn't a rebel.

Yeah, Nikon Rumors is just full of non-contradictions...

"Broxibear
Posted January 21, 2011 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

One day they’re talking about releasing a “PRO” level mirrorless camera, then it’s “not targeted towards people who use cameras in their work, some will look at this product as a really fun to use camera.”
Are they just making it up as they go along ?

Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2011/01/21/flashback-nikon-mirrorless-camera-will-be-something-that-nobody-is-currently-making.aspx#ixzz1BiI3tiaL"

463

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV & 5D3 Thoughts & Lens Patent

« on: January 21, 2011, 01:54:24 PM »

The pressure on the 1Ds Mk3 replacement comes not only from the bottem, but also from the top.  The Pentax 645D brings MF cameras within reach of the budget of 1Ds Mk3 and D3x potential buyer.  The 645D blows away the current 35mm DSLRs for quality and if you aren't shooting action or in a very hostile environment, who cares about the AF andstructural strangth advantages?

464

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV.. The Saga Continues... [CR2]

« on: January 20, 2011, 01:42:16 PM »

It's going to be interesting to see which way Canon and Nikon are going to move with the 5D Mk2 and D700 successors.  I think that both of them will be concerned about the way that the previous models cannablised sales of their top-of-the-line cameras.  Canon's use of the original 5D's outdated AF system speaks for itself, but I think the lack of a D700x or D700s does as well. 

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that there will be no 1Ds Mk4 until 2012.  That would be Olympic year, which would be the time to release a new 1D series (OK -a bit early), but not the high megapixel "studio" variant.  Unless the rumours of a merging of the 1D and 1Ds lines into a single product are true, but then why discontinue the 1Ds Mk3 now (assuming the latter rumour is true)?

I don't think we'll see either the 5D Mk3 or the D800 until the 1Ds Mk4 and D4 are released, unless Canon and Nikon intend to use a different sensor on their lower-tier full frame bodies than on their flagship models (not likely, but I suppose Canon did it before with the 1Ds Mk2 and the original 5D). 

465

EOS Bodies / Re: all 18MP bodies

« on: January 03, 2011, 12:52:05 PM »

This is one reason that I don't see a 1000D replacement using the old 12MP sensor.  Surely it must be more expensive to continue fabricating a separate sensor for one model, than to simply standardise on the 18MP sensor for all APS-C models and differentiate on other features?