Were you looking at the image on a big monitor and blowing it up/cropping it, or were you just chimping on the camera screen?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Desperate means from Nikon of course to sell it at that low price. Will be interesting to see the development of their profits once D800 sales will have larger impact. Also, this will have impact on their overall pricing strategies as they will be held back in trying to get better prices for other models they will launch from now on.I have mixed emotions about reviving this thread, but can't resist a bit of "I told you so."And they avoided selling the 5DIII cheap whereas the D800 must not be earning then much money
Nikon's first quarter results and projections for the year are out. (See Nikon Rumors). Net profit fell by a jaw-dropping 48%!
Now that those numbers are out, it's a little easier to compare performance of Canon and Nikon. The numbers confirm what I said previously – this particular article was written by a single columnist with an ax to grind against Canon's management.
Demand a change in top leadership at Canon when profits are down 2.4%, while a major competitor's profits are down 48%?
Fact is, Canon is well-managed and doing very well during tough economic times.
I got Nikon ones for my Canon lenses they are passable and usable.
If you are staying with APS-C for the foreseeable future keep in mind that the 24-105 becomes a 38-168mm zoom when you multiply by X1.6. The 24-105 is a great lens, but you'll appreciate its qualities more on a FF body.
If you have enjoyed your friend's 16-35, then really consider the equally brilliant EF-S 10-22 or the EF-S 17-55. These will re-sell easily if you move to FF eventually. Like other posters, I'd advise against the L35 simply because of it's limitations on an APS-C body.
and it appears that he tries to avoid being overly critical.
He's not always so nice, just depends on which reviews you look at:
Sigma 20mm f/1.8
"Unfortunately, I consider the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Lens to be unusable at f/1.8 unless you are looking for a soft-focus effect. This lens is one of the softest I've seen wide open.
In conclusion, I recommend not buying the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Lens. Sorry Sigma, this one is a dud."
It's not just sigma:
"The Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is a very small, very light and very cheap telephoto zoom lens.
There is no sticker shock when checking the price on this lens. But, as often is the case, you get what you pay for.
With the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens, you also get very cheap build quality.
Optically, the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is disappointing.
Basically, the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is a very cheap telephoto zoom lens with performance relative to its cost."
Sure, with the L lenses and 1-series bodies he's not going to be too negative, but even in the 1DX review he says things like:
"...but first, I want to point out a potential downside for 1D Mark IV body owners looking to upgrade to the 1D X... This is of course disappointing to many extender users... The largest group of photographers affected by this change are, probably, bird photographers (such as Arthur Morris) - who have been dealt a double blow with the 1D X. Bird photography typically needs the most reach possible - through both lens focal length and sensor density. Increasing focal length via extenders has now been limited (for autofocus to function) and the 1D X has a less-dense sensor than either of the previous 1-Series models...
This is, perhaps, the end of that era. I have to admit that I'm surprised by this design decision. "
He sounds almost British here, being polite as possible about a change for the worse when you can really tell he's annoyed by the no f/8 and knows a lot of others are too.
You just have to read between the lines a bit when reading his reviews, to tell which lenses/bodies he loves and which ones not so much...
well, this is not that easy if you invested in glass already.
I have posted before, that if you are unhappy with Canon's offerings, you should not whinge about them, rather, do not buy them.
Vote with you wallet! It's by far the most effective management and strategy tool in the market.
I see Nikon using Sony sensors, and Sony itself is using its new sensors in its new well-received bodies, and I read people discussing how the Canon sensors seem to be falling behind.
I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else.
As was pointed out earlier, Apple never built their own chips. Also, Intel aren't the only company who manufactures x86 chips.
Apple made a number of smart business decisions and released several very successful products (imac, ipod, OS X) after Jobs took the helm in 98 (and well before they adopted the intel architecture in 2005)
One of the problems with having Canon drop sensors is that most of the companies who build sensors are either their competition, or companies who would like to become their competition.QuoteCanon makes better lenses than Nikon, and could focus on staying ahead on that. They could/should take a page from the perfectionist Steve Jobs, and focus on addressing all the 1000 little niggling customer gripes and wishes about cameras, and making Canons just work better and smoother than Nikon (or Sony). Outclass the competition by thinking of everything, and including it; and by not withholding simple little crap in hardware and firmware that they could instead make standard in all their cameras for very little cost.
Providing nicer products is always a worthy goal, but the Apple way is not to push high end functionality down to low end models so that users of said low end models may aspire to have high end functionality made available at the low end price. Rather it would be to simplify and clean their product lineup by simply eliminating those "tweener" product lines so that these users are left to choose between (for example) the Rebel and the 5D.
Another lesson from Apple, by the way, is that they have never been leaders from a pure price to performance standpoint. Instead, they always lived or died by the idea that users would pay a premium (in some cases a fairly hefty premium) for a well crafted product.
Canon have an analogous though not identical approach -- their plan is essentially to build a compelling system. A good system is not just about sensor performance. It is a comprehensive product line, which includes professional grade support, bodies, lenses, and even printers. The only other manufacturer who can play in the same ballpark at present is Nikon.
But can it read?
I didnt read the entire thread, so I don't know if this was already mentioned or not but Canon makes a 70-200 F4L lens for $700 brand new. You might find one second hand for your $500 budget range.I would agree with that.
It does not have IS, but optically it is one of the sharpest lenses canon currently produces. I would not hesitate at all to get this lens. IS is great, but if you are going to shoot at at least 1/200 or faster at max focal length on this lens and develop steady handling you certainly don't need it.
Just my 2 cents worth....