Messages

376

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Guinea Pig

« on: February 15, 2012, 01:08:40 PM »

I think that it is a waste of time discussing comparative budgets, IQ etc as we all have difference budgets, IQ requirements etc.

Canon produce a wide range of equipment to suit everyone - lets thank them for that.

There will be no obligation to move to ff - infact I think 1.3 is the best allround compromise. APS-C will get left behind in the technology race, there moving it further down the price scale.

The good news is that as APS-C becomes just a consumer item then you will see the 7D equivalent become cheaper.

PS For those worried about their 10-22 and 17-55 should compare their prices with the 17-40 and 24-105, you will not find significant difference. I understand there will the the cry about the 17-55 being f/2.8 and the 24-105 being f/4 - however that is of little consequence in the field as the 1.3/ff will be one stop faster and the DOF will be about the same.

Money IS an object ... at least for most of us. :-)

Not counting those who purchased (multiple) 7D for video-use only, I am sure there are many more amateur/enthusiast 7D users with EF-S (or  lenses who "upgraded" on the APS-C ladder (from xxD and xxxD) as opposed to semi-pros/pros who bought a 7D as second body to an existing 5D / II and already had assorted FF-capable wide-angle lenses.
 
Anybody with an APS-C body (7D) and EF-S lenses (or third party APS-C) but no FF-capable ultra-wide/wide-angle lenses has to put quite a bundle of money on Canons table to switch to FF. It is NOT done with cost of a body. I therefore consider it higjhly relevant to point this out.

In my opinion, the potential gain in IQ / creative possibilities does not warrant the cost for most of them. Only a miniscule fraction of all pictures are printed "really large" to see the difference. Large prints aside, most of the APS-C vs FF difference is visible in pixel-peeping mode - if at all.

The current 17-40 on FF (5D II) is definitely no match in terms of IQ to the 10-22 on a 7D. The 16-35 II may be on par - but at 3 times the cost. The 24-105 on FF is also no match to the 17-55 on APS-C. The distortions of the 24-105 at the short end are quite massive. Yes, it can be reasonably fixed in post ... but why bother, if the 17-55 delivers the goods straight away?

But yes, everybodies mileage varies and everybody has to come to their own conclusions regarding APS-C vs. FF.

I totally disagree with your statement of APS-C being "technologically left behind" (any time soon) ... I find it much more likely that FF (DSLR-bodies and adequate glass) will be totally priced out of the (enthusiast) market and therefore become a small niche ... similar to where MF has ended up today.

To me, the technical future of photography is extremely likely to be in mirrorless systems with sensors sized between mFT and APS-C.  :-)

377

Lenses / Re: What lens for 7D EF-S or L

« on: February 15, 2012, 11:35:42 AM »

Okay that puts things into prospective, I don't foresee making the jump to FF due to the high costs of the body's 1500 is probably the max I could ever spend on a camera.  and I enjoy being able to shoot really wide when I want to which probably rules out all L glass for me.

do you currently have an EF-S 18-55 kit lens with your XSI?

If so, check it out @ 18mm ... and/or check the EXIFs of your pictures (there is free software to do this) to see what focal lengths you are mainly using ...  and decide yourself whether 18mm focal length is "really wide" for you.

If the answer is NO - and you want to it even "wider", then look at ultrawideangle lenses, e.g. the EF-S 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 etc.

If 18mm is "wide enough" for you ... then the next question is: do you intend to frequently shoot moving subjects (people/children, animals/pets, vehicles, etc.) often also in rather low light (e.g. everything indoor)?

If yes, you may want to look at the EF-S 17-55 which offers a very useful focal range and a wider aperture (plus Image Stabilizer) on top. It is quite fat, quite heavy and not cheap, but performance-wise worth every cent in my opinion.     

If you want somewhat more "reach"  on the tele end [again, check with the kitlens @55mm] and if you plan to use the lens almost always in good lighting conditions (=outdoor, fair weather, flash, studio), then look at the EF-S 15-85 IS.

378

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: February 15, 2012, 09:38:47 AM »

Given the way the 7D has stomped the D300 and the D300s, you have got to think that Nikon will be coming full bore with with D400 just the way they came with guns blazing on the D800. I'm really curious to see what they offer. I'm betting it will be good so Canon you know has to plan a good response.

Credibility I give to this CR1 rumor? Probability <1%.

exactly the way I see it too! Really hope the D400 will come and be excellent, so Canon won't get by with a minimalist small upgrade to the 7D.

379

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Guinea Pig

« on: February 15, 2012, 09:35:38 AM »

Just look at how many people have a 5D Mark II and 7D combination.

Makes lots of sense, but does not help the mass of people like myself who came up the ladder on APS-C and have purchased EF-S wide-angle glass + EF tele. The tele will be fine on a 5D II/X whatever ... BUT wait, on the 5D we want to use wide-angle, ricght? ;-)

So, it would require me to sell 10-22, 17-55, 60 Macro - lets assume for a total of 1500 Euro.

Now lets go and buy new 5D III/X capable glass:
* 100/2.8 Macro - yes, fine ... 800 Euro
* wide-angle? hmm ... 17-40 ... way too crappy. 16-35 II ... not good enough for the price tag. 14-24 ... yes, stellar - but oh no, this happens to be a Nikon lens. No such thing in Canon land. 24-70 - way to crappy. Sole contender the 24-70 II - IF the theoretical Canon-MTF curve bears any resemblance with real life performance. But 2300 Euro (!).
* plus of course the fantastic TS-E 17/4 ... IF I went FF that would be my first lens to buy actually ... so kiss goodbye to another 2200 Euro.

Total 5.3k Euro minus 1.5k Euro leaves a gap of 3800 Euro (not USD). Ah yes, and don't forget the body, of course. To get what ... 1 stop less noise than the 7D? Thanks, but no thanks! Lightroom and Topaz Denoise are working very nicely for me. Up to ISO 3200 ... no problem.  :-)

380

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Guinea Pig

« on: February 15, 2012, 09:03:03 AM »

 In addition to the body it would mean having to replace my 10-22 and my 17-55 with over-priced FF-lenses that cost four times as much without delivering way better IQ for my images.

Have you a link that shows this?

yes. look it up at www.photozone.de

381

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Full Frame body with crop mode ( that can use EF-S lenses)

« on: February 15, 2012, 08:59:00 AM »

it would only be a problem with the current EF-S 10-22 since that is the ONLY EF-S lens that takes some advantage of the EF-S short back flange concept (rear element closer to sensor). All other current EF-S lenses have no rear elements protruding into the mirrorbox.

Are you sure about that?  I've just had a look at my EF-S lenses (15-85, 18-55, 55-250 as well as the 10-22) and they all seem to have the same protrusion.

Thanks!  You are right, I stand corrected.

Just checked it again myself. The physical protrusion is the same, only the rear lens element seems to not really fully use it - except at the 10-22 where it does come back all the way, and the 60 Macro seems to use a small part of the way.

382

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: February 15, 2012, 07:35:56 AM »

i think you missed the point
1) crop the aps-h image to aps-c same way nikon does and since its processing a smaller image boost frame rate accordingly, (the vignetting isnt that bad anyway as i said before i've seen worse out of tamron ef lenses)
2) make it mirrorless problem solved

APS-H mirrorless
22mp
10fps
takes EF and EF-S lens
light weight and compact

- that would put the cat amongst the pidgeons

I agree on that one! But I am willing to bet that Canon's mirrorless line will have the same shitty small sensor format of the G1X ...  http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canong1x/images/Sensorsizes.png ... and it will be consumer-oriented, castrated bodies ... along the lines of NEX-3,  NEX 5 and most of the mFT Pannies and Olys.

383

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Guinea Pig

« on: February 15, 2012, 07:29:53 AM »

the 7D was no guinea pig. It was Canon's last moment answer to Nikon's surprisingly good D300. Canon was really under the gun, because the 50D was such a lame upgrade over the 40D. Had they just brought a 60D  marginal evolutionary upgrade instead of the bigger step to the 7D [adequate sensor/IQ, AF-system, sealed-body etc.]  they would have lost a large part of their enthusiast/semi-pro/crop-pro user base to Nikon.

I for one would have made the switch to Nikon had the 7D not entered the scene "at the last moment". Glad I didn't, because I prefer Canons user interface over Nikon's and I am very happy with the 7D and the pictures I can get with it.

No matter what 5D III, 5D X etc. Canon my bring ... I will not go FF any time soon. In addition to the body it would mean having to replace my 10-22 and my 17-55 with over-priced FF-lenses that cost four times as much without delivering way better IQ for my images. Not to mention the tele side where I get stellar results from the 70-200 II and good results from the 100-400 on a 7D, whereas on a FF I#d be forced into super-tele land. No way!

384

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Full Frame body with crop mode ( that can use EF-S lenses)

« on: February 15, 2012, 07:11:49 AM »

it would only be a problem with the current EF-S 10-22 since that is the ONLY EF-S lens that takes some advantage of the EF-S short back flange concept (rear element closer to sensor). All other current EF-S lenses have no rear elements protruding into the mirrorbox.

385

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: February 15, 2012, 07:10:04 AM »

No one says to keep the full resolution of a APS-H sensor when an EF-S lens is used. I mean when you will use a EF-s lens on a... say... 20MP APS-H sensor you will have 12-13MP effective resolution ( the camera will crop the 1.3 sensor to 1.6).

wrong!

1. EF-S lenses do NOT cover the image circle of APS-H (Crop 1.3x) - and even if you get a format-filling image at some focal lengths, vignetting will be really bad and IQ will be terrible towards the edges/corners.

2. Especially the rear element of the EF-S 10-22 may very well be hit by the larger mirror in an APS-H camera - as long as we assume it will be a DSLR and not a mirrorless APS-H camera body.

3. Unfortunately Canonhas was dead wrong to introduce the EF-S mount for its APS-C lenses (Crop 1.6x). Nikon has done it 100% right and implemented the only sensible solution: only ONE lens mount for any and all lenses - FX and DX. And NO rear elements sticking into the body so they may be hit by a larger FF camera mirror. And especially the D4 and D800 offer perfect cropping solutions by automacially masking off parts of the viewfinder if a crop lens (DX) is mounted. Although I like my Crop camera (7D) and my 3 good EF-S lenses (10-22, 17-55, 60 Macro) I can cleraly tell how inferior Canon's EF-S concept is. 

4. Actually, Canon is not even taking advantage of the theoretical EF-S advantage. Only ONE EF-S lens (10-22) has a rear element sticking into the mirror box to be closer to the sensor. ALL other existing EF-S lenses could have implemented with an EF mount without any changes to their optical design. And even the EF-S 10-22 could have ben quite easily designed to also work with an EF mount ... Nikon had no problem designing their AF-S 10-24 DX to fit into their regular F-mount.

5. I have no doubt whatsoever, that there will be a 7D successor with APS-C sensor (crop 1.6x). It will be better than the current 7D. It will most likely only be announced some time after Nikon launches their new DX pro-body (D400 or whatever they may call it). 

386

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 09:38:30 AM »

To me this rumor is not credible at all.

Canon has every reason to follow up on the enormously successful 7D with another top-level APS-C camera.

There are so many enthusiasts who own or are willing to buy "the good" EF-S lenses (17-55, 15-85, 10-22,  60 Macro). Majority of them are not willing/financially able to step up to big $ fullframe. The 5D II successor(s) will most likely be more expensive than the 5D II launch - probably around 3k $ for the body. Plus immediate  major upgrade cost for expensive, FF-capable wide-angle lenses ... 24-70 II, 16-35 II, 24 II, 14 II, 35/1.4 or the new 24/2.8, 28/2.8.

At the same time anybody who has used a 7D for a while will most likely not want to step down to the consumer-style bodies 60D or rebels with poor AF.

From my perspective it would make most sense to continue with the 2-tiered rebel series with a cheap end (currently 1100D) and a mid-level offering (currently 600D) plus a top-tier 7D II and discontinue the former xxD line altogether. 

I will upgrade to a 7D II if it can fully match an upcoming Nikon D400. In terms of sensor/IQ, electronics, performance/responsiveness, and especially AF ... most likely that would mean the 7D II should "inherit" the current 1D IV AF system (45 pt). In addition I would like it to get a tilt-swivel display (like the 60D). If they offer such a camera at $ 1800 launch price it will sell extremely well again and will leave hardly ny room or need for a  70D.

387

Lenses / Re: A Lens Roadmap? [CR1]

« on: February 11, 2012, 02:18:01 PM »

EF 100-400 4-5.6 L IS tagged “final”, “autumn 2012″
-> if optical performance is as good as the 70-200/2.8 L IS II I will buy it as soon as I can get it for max. € 2.500

EF-S 45-105 IS status “development”
if it is f/2.0 or at least f/2.8 and optically at least as good as the 17-55 I will also buy it

388

EOS Bodies / Re: What must the Japanese think?

« on: February 09, 2012, 06:39:30 PM »

Honestly, if Canon had put a 15 or 19 point AF system based on the 1Dsmk3 and 5fps in the 5D2 when it was introduced 3+ years ago, how many people here would be complaining about not getting the 5D3 released yet? They could have listed that at $2999 back then and the technology was available to do it.

A camera of that type would be heads and shoulders above todays market for IQ, handling, and ability.  I know I would not trade that for what's on the market today.

So....given that, are we asking for too much?  I don't think so.

+1 ... exactly my opinion!

And now ... as far as I am concerned bothe the 5D III and the 7D II should come not only with the 1 D IV AF-system but with Eye-Tracking AF on top. Of course improved from the EOS 3 days to 2012 state of the art.

That would really benefit most of us every time we peek through the finder to frame a shot and try to get into  focus whatever we want to be in focus. ANd it would benefit Canon big time, as they would have a USP that lasts 3+ years.

389

EOS Bodies / Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.

« on: February 09, 2012, 06:24:48 PM »

I honestly believe, every single new lens - aside from maybe fisheyes -  from a camera manufacturer like Canon (or Nikon)  that does not offer in-body stabilization should come out with IS.  Even if some or many users may or will never use IS, there are way more situations in which it is useful.

There is not a single rational argument against IS:
* IS adds hardly any weight - e.g. the EF  70-200/4 L with IS is exactly 55grams heavier than the non-IS version
* IS does not add size -  e.g. the EF 70-200/4 L IS has exactly the same dimensions as the non-L variant
* IS does not make a lens less sharp or otherwise optically inferior ... e.,g. the EF 70-200 4 L IS is sharper than the non-IS variant
* IS is dirt cheap ... I bet it costs Canon less than 50 $/€  on a non-supertele lens like e.g. the 24-70

I find the 24-70 II at a price tag of € 2299 just ludicrous without IS. ALso, the MTF is worth rather little, as Canon publishes "theoretical/calculated" MTFs ... as opposed to Zeiss who publish "real/measured" MTFs. Furthermore, a major improvement over the rather mediocre 24-70 Mk I was and is absolutely necessary ... so the Mk. II better be really good. 

I am however, not going to switch to Nikon (yet), because I am a fairly happy APS-C hobbyist (7D) and love my 17-55 with IS ... which by the way is optically better than the 24-70 L Mk I over the entire overlapping focal range ... "despite" having IS! Nikon has (still) no 17-55 with IS - and that was one of the main reasons I did not switch from my earlier 40D to Nikons D300 but waited for the 7D.

If Nikon brings out a D400 which bests the 7D by the same margin the D800 bests the 5D II ... I will reconsider again.

And, take this Canon fanboys: should I ever switch to FF, I will definitely consider the Tamron 24-70 with VC and USM at probably less than half of the price of a Canon 24-70 without IS - no matter whether my future FF camera will be made by Canon or Nikon.

 

390

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Flip out displays -- why the resentment?

« on: January 30, 2012, 05:43:24 AM »

@JerryBruck: excellent "sample" pics ... really like them ... a lot!

I would prefer a flip screen on my camera too, even though I went from 40D to 7D rather than 60D because of better 7D AF + features and weather sealing.  I valued those higher than the flip screen. I never do video, only still photography. I would find a flip screen especially useful for candid/street pics.

But I also bought a Powershot S95 rather than a Powershot G  - because I valued compact size even higher than a flip screen ...