August 21, 2014, 10:07:23 AM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - ronderick

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27]
391
Lenses / Re: Which Lens Are You Looking Forward To?
« on: July 26, 2010, 09:45:57 PM »
A 200-400 f/4 zoom like the Nikon one will be nice... maybe stick in a DO if it doesn't affect the quality too much - that might cut some weight off the potential monster.

Well, things would like nice as long as we don't ask about the price ::)

392
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the 5DIII entry price be higher than 5DII's?
« on: July 26, 2010, 09:38:18 PM »
Perhaps the 5DIII will be marginally more expensive than 5DII when first introduced... given all the hypes about 5DII and how people are holding their breath for the next 5D installation (why not capitalize on reputation?).

However, that's only if Canon decides not to add some fancy functions and use it as a justification to jack up the price...

393
Site Information / Re: The Return of the Forum
« on: July 23, 2010, 12:01:46 AM »
A quick question: is it possible to expand "Japan" in the regional board to "East Asia"?

394
EOS Bodies / Re: Which is coming first: 5D mkiii, or 7D mkii??
« on: July 22, 2010, 10:33:06 PM »
The Nikon D700 is closer to replacement than the D300S. I don't see Canon letting the Nikon D800 (?) have the entry level full frame market to itself with a new model for long.

I wonder if this is part of the reason they have not released the 1Ds IV, as to not tip their hand on the next generation of full frame sensors.

Yeah, I guess we're all waiting for the showdown at Photokina  ;D.

I also agree with you that we probably won't see any 5D3 until D800 hits the shelf - what a pity.

As for the 1Ds line, I think it's going to be really murky since Canon would not only have to deal with a potential D4 (though I doubt Nikon's in any kind of rush since the fullframe D3s is still considered fresh and usable), but also with the 645D from Pentax.

Of course, we'll see if Canon is going to differentiate between the 1DsIV and 5D3 in terms of pixel counts.


395
Lenses / Re: New f/4L EF Zoom [CR1]
« on: July 22, 2010, 09:50:37 PM »

But the amount added can vary from lens to lens:

a) 70-200 f/4 without and with IS: 705 to 760 g
b) 100 f/2.8 macro without and with IS: 600 to 625 g

In the two examples listed above, the increase is very slight (about 4 to 8%).

Don't know about the 70-200 f/4, but in the case of 100 f/2.8, I have experienced the dilimma of choosing between IS or none-IS (Thanks for mentioning this one... I almost forgot about the first H-IS update).

While it may not be that significant in terms of weight, there's a notable jump in filter size (58mm to 67mm) and size (the barrel is considerably thicker). I must admit, the H-IS helps handheld macro shots a lot, but the size expansion is a real factor when your backpack is only so big.

It makes all the difference in deciding whether it's a regular starter or bench role, and in this case I chose size/cost over H-IS/L quality...

And definitely that's one thing I hope won't happen to the assumed 17-40 update (unless Canon markets it as a completely seperate option)

396
Lenses / Re: New f/4L EF Zoom [CR1]
« on: July 22, 2010, 01:34:26 AM »
I would be a bit worried about the size of this new 16-50L IS.

I think the most notable advantage of the 17-40 is its compact size. However, if the evolution would involve a change similar to 16-35L I to 16-35 LII... (and don't forget how IS tends to make the lens bigger)  :-\

Can you show us a lens that is bigger due to IS? Not one that I can think of - I could be wrong on this.
I also don't believe that 1 mm at front end and 10 at long end will greatly increase the size of the lens. it would be smaller than the 17-55 2.8 so it can't be too big...

How can putting on additional components not affect the size and weight?

70-200 f/2.8L USM              84.6mm x 193.6mm, 1310g
70-200 f/2.8L IS USM         86.2mm x 197mm, 1470g
(*stats from Canon USA website)

I haven't compared the two side-by-side, but any extra weight accounts for a big difference at the end of the day (as for whether you can tell the difference of a several mm in dimension, that's subjective).

However, if 16-50 f/4 L was indeed to come, my bet is there'll be notable differences, since its both adding IS and focal length. We'd be lucky if Canon keeps the filter size at 77 *shrug*

397
EOS Bodies / Re: Which Camera Are You Looking Forward Too?
« on: July 21, 2010, 09:38:05 PM »
I wanted to see just how far Canon could go with the 1DsIV in terms of image quality (and whether they'd stick with the EF mount... *fingers crossed*)

Of course, I'm also desperate for an affordable 5D series successor ever since I sold my 5D2 earlier this year... it's hard to get back to crop bodies after getting used to FF...

398
EOS Bodies / Re: Which is coming first: 5D mkiii, or 7D mkii??
« on: July 20, 2010, 11:52:30 PM »
I'd imagine 5dIII to be fair game between end of this year and the first half of 2011. It's about time that Canon upgrades its affordable FF with a buffed-up AF system.

However, I won't be surprised if Canon waits for Nikon to announce the D700 replacement before revealing its cards.

7D replacement? Rumors will probably emerge in 2012 or beyond...

399
Lenses / Re: New f/4L EF Zoom [CR1]
« on: July 20, 2010, 10:59:06 PM »
I would be a bit worried about the size of this new 16-50L IS.

I think the most notable advantage of the 17-40 is its compact size. However, if the evolution would involve a change similar to 16-35L I to 16-35 LII... (and don't forget how IS tends to make the lens bigger)  :-\

400
Whatever happened to $$$?

If budget isn't an issue, my next new camera would be a 1DsIII (or IV, if Canon announces it). ;D


Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27]