its around 1600e in Switzerland, still 300e more than the 600d
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.
I think it will be high frame rate because high frame rate is what Canon does better than anyone else. I have also been poring over Canon patents for the last month, and they seem to have quite a number of parallel readout and parallel pixel processing patents for high speed readout of high megapixel count sensors. Canon has also prototyped a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate using some combination of block and row/column parallel readout and on-die image processing.
I see no reason why that technology could not be applied to a "measly" 30-40mp FF sensor to achieve at least 6-8fps. I also see no reason why ISO range would have to suffer. High ISO capabilities are not mutually exclusive with low ISO capabilities. On the contrary, high ISO is limited by physics, while low ISO is limited by electronic noise sources. Canons maximum well capacity is already more than high enough to fully exploit 14 bit data, as well as fully exploit 16 bit data...the only thing in the way is their high read noise. That could be solved with a parallel digital readout approach that applies digital noise reduction similar to Sony. If Canon solves the noise problem, they could easily have both quality high and quality low ISO performance.
This thread has to be a joke. Either way, it's really, really awful.
I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much. I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting. But, back to the subject at hand, while I had the 2.8 MkII I rented the Tamron, in my opinion, not as good as Canon. When the f/4 came out, I rented it and compared it to the f/2.8 and "for what I need" the f/4 was the winner and I returned the f/2.8 and bought the f/4. All comparisons done on a 5dMkIII.
Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal). Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls. The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII. This hybrid IS is rock solid.
I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not. Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles. (I have never been paid a penny for test shots). Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).
I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points. Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.
Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?
It is possible that Canon is cutting fewer corners than Nikon.
Fact is that Nikon put out many D800’s that could not autofocus properly. Fact is also that many D600’s have a flaw that causes the camera to spatter oil over the sensor for the first 3000 shots. Both problem’s were serious and seemed widespread.
Really sorry guys - this is embarrassing.
The demand on my site from this post has caused a massive load on a shared server. Its a big post with a lot of images. As soon as it comes back online I can trim it down a bit - at the moment I cant get in to do that.
Im investigating getting a dedicated server. I have a couple of other sites as well so might not be a bad idea.
If anyone knows a good value company for this Id be very interested. Im in the UK.
My website admin guy is talking about £80 per month, gulp!
Good point, but I don't tolerate poor quality from any manufacturer.
Canon may be a bunch of shisters for price, but the quality is always top notch...
Am I alone in this thinking or is this an opportunity to maybe pocket $1-200 on the side and land a 'superior' product, at least until the 35L ii arrives (which will likely be still much more expensive).
Why does it make no sense to compare resolution numbers of 35mm and 50mm lenses? I'm just saying it's not a "mediocre" lens if it produces resolution better than some highly regarded 50's, even better than the Leica 50 Summicron. Infared mentioned that he had a "great experience" with his Sigma 50/1.4, but described this new Canon 35 as "mediocre" — and yet the new Canon offers better resolution than his Sigma 50/1.4, ... so why not compare the numbers?Well, pas mal Infared didnt mention his 150-500 cause then you could draw some rather interesting comparisons;
Your point is very valid. It should be noted the new lens destroys the 35L in every category when the 35L is wide open; it is only stopped down that it surpasses the new 35 f/2 IS in the corners. In fact, if it weren't for the Sigma's numbers, we would probably think this new lens was pretty great. But the Sigma is turning in some fantastic numbers...and that makes it hard to deny.The new one seems to have better corners & Ca but center res & distorion on par with the old one, I would deem that okayish not "pretty great" specially considering the old one is 22years old and 1/3 in price, IS notwithstanding.
The numbers don't show a very mediocre lens. To put things in perspective, look back at LensRentals' "The Great 50mm Shootout" —
and it appears that the new Canon 35mm f/2 IS offers better resolution (center & average) wide open at f/2 than ANY of the 50mm lenses at f/2, with the exception of the legendary $4,000 Leica Summilux. And keep in mind that most of those 50mm lenses are stopped down at f/2, whereas this new 35mm is wide open.
It can't be too mediocre if it offers better resolution at f/2 than any of these lenses do at f/2: