Messages

46

EOS Bodies / Re: Will the 70d have a new sensor?

« on: March 13, 2013, 05:31:40 PM »

Or, it's possible that the 70D will be priced closer to the 7D's initial price...in the $1500+ range, body only.  In this case, I will grant that it's possible they both could get the same sensor.  But for $1500, the 70D had better have an AF sensor (and the processing speed to keep up with it), at least equal to, if not superior to, the previous 7D.  And max frame rate had better be at least 7fps, if not 8.

If the frame rate on the new Rebel is 6fps, then the frame rate on the 70D better be 7 or 8fps just for it to not fail from the start.

47

EOS Bodies / Re: The Next Rebel? [CR1]

« on: March 13, 2013, 05:27:22 PM »

It will probably have 9 cross types, where does that leave the 6D 

As a full frame camera in a completely different world IQ wise...

Really, all this spec list does is say that the 70D has to be great, or have some new sensor, otherwise it'll flop. And that the 7d2 will really have to be a leap forward

48

EOS Bodies / Re: The Next Rebel? [CR1]

« on: March 13, 2013, 10:35:39 AM »

Do they really need another Rebel?  They better had make the 70D something stellar...the lines are beginning to converge to closely.

70D is basically gonna have to be the 7D (8fps, 19pt AF, etc) for anyone to be choosing it over that rebel.

49

Lenses / Re: EF or EF-S for 7D/70D

« on: March 07, 2013, 10:46:35 AM »

Both of those high-end EF-S lenses will hold their value well - in a few years when you get a FF body, sell the EF-S lens and buy the kit lens with the FF body.

Agreed; in a few years, I'll have easily shot 25,000+ pictures...I'd rather have the best lens for those pictures at that moment and worry about resale later.

For the same price as that 17-40, you could have wide angle now with the Tokina or Canon wide angles. And you can still use the Tokina at 15/16mm on full-frame (though not ideal). Or, like Neuro said, you could have the 15-85 which gives you both IS and more range. And you get a stop of light back with the 17-55.

Heck, in a few years we'll be having the discussion of whether you should be getting the 5dIV, if it's worth putting money in old technology like the 5dIII. The 17-40 might be replaced by an updated version, or Canon might have a better wide angle out. Hell, it might be clear that Canon is fading and Nikon or Sony are the better path. That's why it makes sense to go with what is the best option now. Especially when your upgrade is years off

50

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The Next Zeiss Lenses? [CR2]

« on: March 03, 2013, 03:57:50 PM »

A new wide angle prime between 17mm and 21mm would be nice.

Do you want an 18, 19 or 20?  Or perhaps something like 19.25 

Seriously. They already make a 15mm, an 18mm and a 21mm. Definitely no need for something in between, as most companies only make a 14mm and a 24mm prime

51

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Capturing Stills from 4K Video with the EOS-1D C

« on: March 03, 2013, 03:54:13 PM »

Yup. I think I commented on this ability elsewhere: the 1D-C is a 24fps 8MP camera. If you double the price of the 1DX (which does 12fps), then voila, you're in 1D-C price territory.

And even more so, it does 24fps with essentially no buffer.

52

EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR at the End of March [CR2]

« on: March 03, 2013, 03:47:52 PM »

The Canon 40D had a 30 - 1/8000 sec shutter and a Flash X-Sync of 1/250 sec. Why would the NEW 70D have specs worse than a camera released in 2007

Because the flash sync on the 6D is 1/180 and 5D3 is 1/200, so, no way the 70D would go beyond the 5dIII. I'm not sure I agree with the 1/4000th, but, it seems to be the way both Canon and Nikon are differentiating lines (D600/D800 and 5D3/6D). Wouldn't surprise me if the 70D had 1/4000th, leaving the 1/8000th for the 7dII

53

EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR at the End of March [CR2]

« on: March 01, 2013, 11:24:37 AM »

At $1200 or so, that doesn't beat the D7100 on paper, per se, but given recent history, it would be competitive enough. If Canon goes nuts and releases it at $1000 or something, it sounds like a great deal.

Seeing as they release the Ti series at $999, I can't imagine the 70D being released even close to that price range. The 60D listed at $1099 as the spec'd down version of the 50D. If it's going back up, so will the list price...$1299 if Canon is feeling nice, $1400+ if they aren't. 7DII probably will list around what the 6D does.

54

EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR at the End of March [CR2]

« on: February 28, 2013, 01:37:47 PM »

I think of new sensor, touchscreen and WiFi, that's it.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if they basically made it a 7D with a swivel screen (and wifi/gps). They can still incorporate that screen into a 50D/7D style body.

I'm not expecting a new sensor, though it'll be really embarassing if they don't have a new one. Hopefully they roll out a new one that will trickle down to the T5i, and the 7DII gets its own special thing.

55

Lenses / Re: Canon Cine vs. L lens video. Hilarious

« on: February 28, 2013, 01:07:59 PM »

I AM surprised though, that a company such as Samyang/Rokinon isn't all over the 'cine glass' trend. They immediately need to re-house their already re-housed cine lenses into similar fat steel beauties.

They don't seem to be interested in making lens that are >$1000 in cost (note that even their T/S is $999), so, I think they are pretty happy to make cine versions with a 25% markup over their non-cine versions, even though they are the same optically.

56

Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?

« on: February 28, 2013, 12:56:04 PM »

For what its worth, I would probably only pay $2000-2500 for a 35-85mm f/2 that weighed a little over 2 lbs and was comparable to their 24-xxx zooms in image quality (the 24-70 ii is about $2050 currently on amazon).  My wild and speculative guess is that if Canon were to actually introduce such a lens it would be more than double that price, so its kind of a moot point for me.  I would still be interested in seeing design info though.

Yeah, I don't think its a technical limitation, it's more an R&D time limitation that keeps them from making f/2 zooms. As others have mentioned, you'd need a lot of glass and large filters, which by weight and filter size eliminates a lot of the market. Then you have to recoup the cost of R&D, and the cost of all that glass, so your starting point price is already higher than $2500+ I'd bet. Then, because its expensive, fewer people are in the market. Forum kings will complain they can have a 35L, 50L, and 85L for the price, and they are all faster than f/2! So your market grows smaller, and cost goes up. Assume it's a $4000 zoom; who is really buying it over the 24-70 f/2.8 at half the price? Those that NEED f/2 also probably NEED f/1.4 as well.

It's also looking to solve a problem that basically doesn't exist, and that pros likely won't pay for. They'll carry a 35L and an 85L, or a 24-70 and a prime instead. Whereas, with the 200-400, getting a 200-560 zoom that is super high quality and doesn't necessitate lens changes in bad environments is something a pro will pay for. If twice as many paid for it, the lens might cost $8-9000, instead of $11,000+.

57

Lenses / Re: Buy EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II now or wait until September?

« on: February 28, 2013, 12:47:54 PM »

I just read in this article that the old version is better: http://lenstests.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-5.6-is-ii-page-3

What do I do? Get the old one or new one?

That's now how it reads to me...it says the old one might be a little better optically (though that is likely sample variation), but that mechanically the new one is better (tighter zoom ring, etc).

As others have said, the 55-250 comes up in deals in the $150-175 range from time to time, so I'd wait for one of those. If not that, then it gets sold off "used" (but really new in box) when people buy kits but don't want it; and you can usually get it for $150 then too.

58

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 7100 has been anounced

« on: February 20, 2013, 07:52:48 PM »

More marketing speak....

"Combine that with fantastic ISO performance at both ends of the spectrum—down to ISO 100 and up to ISO 6400"

Kind of makes 6400 sound like the upper limit.... and who cares what the lower limit is, that's why there ND filters.. I can slap a ND8 filter on at ISO100 and shoot like it's ISO12

You mean there is marketing speak in a press release? Stunning!

Comparing it to the 7dII spec list that got posted the other day, Canon's variation would top it in AF and frame rate, but we'll see if video features also means headphone jack, etc. And how will it compare at both ISO 100 and 6400. And that's not even counting the price; gonna be interesting to see what they both come in at.

May well be that Canon can out-do Nikon in the APS-C realm

59

Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?

« on: February 20, 2013, 09:22:19 AM »

Personally, I don't understand the desire for such large range zooms.  The more range you add, the less likely it is to be a clean lens.  At some point you just need to change lenses.  That is the whole point of an SLR; you can change lenses.  What is next, a 10-800mm? 

Actually, the point of a lens like that is that the things you shoot with it (birds, wildlife, outdoor sports) contain subjects that move a lot and might be 10ft from you one minute and 50ft from you the next. Changing lenses doesn't solve the issue, and for some of them (let's say on a Safari or shooting a mother bear and her cubs) getting closer is perhaps not the best idea.

Pretty much all zooms, except those on the very extreme ends (ultra-wides and fast super-tele), make a 3-4x zoom. Your 70-200's, 70-300's, 24-70, etc. Don't see too many people complaining about the tradeoffs of a 3x zoom in their new 24-70 or 70-200. And even the current 100-400 is pretty good optically, it just uses a different style zoom and could probably stand for some weight-saving technology that Canon has updated their other lenses with.

60

Lenses / Re: Weddings 70-200mm 2.8 is vs 4 is

« on: February 19, 2013, 10:42:46 PM »

Weight is a definite concern with the 2.8ii and was probably the main reason I chose the f4IS over it. I just couldnt stand carrying that thing around all day. I'm much happier using the lighter zoom and filling in with fast primes when needed.

Yep, this would be my answer too. If you need more light, then the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 probably isn't enough (especially in a dark ceremony or reception) and you'd want something in the f/1's anyway. But, if the room is bright or you are outdoors, f/4 will do the job just fine.

Also, it may not be the biggest factor, but the f/4 IS and the Sigma 85 or 135L combined would be the same if not cheaper than the f/2.8 II. And you can decide based on pre-scouting, etc which you'd need that day