I'm surprised Paul hasn't chimed in yet! Must be busy with other stuff...
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.
Full frame super zooms are a rare beast - it's odd that the only L option is the silly sized 28-300mm which isn't really a walk around lens - only alternatives are older stuff like the 28-135 mm which isn't really a wide a range as what's offered on the EF-S range, where you get the 18-135 and 18-200 (which is like having 29-216 & 29-320mm in your hands)
I'd say that there is a market now with the entry level 6D for a range of L superzooms, giving for example a 20-135mm, 24-200mm (black) and continue the 28-300mm product, probably all retaining a variable f stop, with prices at say £600-800 range for the two newer models, maybe with last gen IS ?
Sales (profits) of "lame P&S" fund R&D that goes into DSLR's.(*)
In general, yes, we need Canon (and Nikon and Sony and...) to have profitable P&S products to drive R&D.
well then the future looks very grim and canon should start making mobile phones.
QuoteI think the 55-250 is a worthwhile upgrade over the 75-300 for at least three reasons: IS, sharper and better images, and a newer design. I
To be clear, my 75-300 has IS, but I believe the IS on the 55-250 is better as it is of a newer design.
So the advantage might also be how sharp it is by comparison. They are so cheap, it seems like a good hold over lens compared to living with what I have. I also wonder if the 55 might be a little nicer as the 75 is often too long.
I imagine the slow focus and focus hunting will be no better.
Does anyone know of any comparisons between these two in terms of sharpness? The 75-300 IS isn't on Photozone or the Digital Picture.
Thanks for the replies!
even if it is just for a brief moment? ... COOL
QuoteI would suggest you have a look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is the best "non L" telephoto that Canon makes other than their "DO" version which is quite a bit more expensive. If you have the money, the f/4L IS is a fantastic lens.
I'm aware of the 70-300 IS as well and have read good things about it. I didn't mention it because I thought I was throwing too many lenses out there.
I guess I wonder if the 70-300 IS would be enough of an upgrade over the 75-300 IS to make it worthwhile as opposed to living with it until I can get the L with IS. Would it be a better choice than the 70-200 w/o IS? I suppose it depends where and how you are going to use it. Better optics and faster focusing vs IS.
Too often I find myself needing more light. I'm finding it better to push the ISO since I prefer noise to blur, but noise is not so great either. The real answer would be the 70-200 F2.8 IS and even better with FF, but that's more down the road.
Like I said, I'll likely get the 85 1.8 first since it will offer good range and fast optics that will fill alot of my needs and function as good portrait lens as well.
I'm constantly learning how to pull more and more from my equipment as my skills grow, so it's all good. Even the best equipment has it's limitations. The challenge is how to make the most of it and have fun doing it!
The difference between the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens is not as clear. The 55-250 has less play in the barrel than the 70-300, but the 70-300 is more solidly built including a metal lens mount. The 70-300 is larger and heavier. The 55-250 has a more-matte finish. While the focus ring on both lenses turns during AF, the 70-300's focus ring does not manually turn in AF mode. This makes lens hoods and filters easier to install/remove, but makes parking the lens in the most compact size more difficult (though you are not supposed to turn the focus ring on the 55-250 in AF mode either). While the 70-300 has USM AF, it is Micro USM - not Ring USM - and is not greatly different from the 55-250 in AF speed. The 70-300 is compatible with all EOS bodies including full frame film and digital models. To the 55-250's advantage is that it retracts to a smaller size, weighs less and costs noticeably less.
In the image quality department, these two lenses are more similar than in the 70-200 L comparison. Wide open, both lenses are similar in sharpness at the center of the frame, but the 70-300 is generally sharper in the corners - which is not surprising as it is a full-frame compatible lens. Stopping down 1 stop makes a bigger difference in sharpness on the 70-300 than it does on the 55-250 - and this gives the 70-300 a bigger edge at these apertures. The 55-250 delivers better image sharpness at 250mm than the 70-300 does at 300mm. The 70-300 shows less vignetting wide open on a 1.6x body. The 70-300 has less distortion over most of its focal length range.
Wow. I thought... eh maybe if it comes around 5 or 6K... I might be able to swing it... but that is just crazy big.
since the RAW image has to be acquired and converted to jpg even when shooting RAW only.
When a RAW image is captured, a JPG conversion is done in-camera to create a small preview image, and that JPG preview is saved within the RAW file container. That JPG preview is what you see on the rear LCD of the camera after the shot, and importantly, it's what's used to generate the histogram data and the highlight alert if you use those features.
It's worth knowing, because many people think that the in-camera settings are totally irrelevant if recording RAW images - that's mostly true (long exposure NR is an exception), but if you make exposure decisions (e.g. ETTR) based on the histogram, the settings for Picture Style (contrast, etc.), ALO, HTP, white balance, etc., are all applied to the JPG preview image and the histogram data/blinkies, and that can affect your exposure decisions. Some people actually use a modified Picture Style that makes the JPG image more closely resemble the RAW file in terms of exposure.
It is kind of surprising that you get jpeg but not raw in the highest speed mode. This suggests that is it _some_ (e.g. bus) bandwidth that is the limitation, and not the number-crunching needed to develop into jpeg.
As suggested above, the reflex mirror seems to impose the 12 fps limit as MLU is needed for 14 fps. The fact that only jpgs are written at 14 fps does suggest a limitation in the write capabilities, since the RAW image has to be acquired and converted to jpg even when shooting RAW only.
From a marketing perspective, it seems like they'd go backwards in that sense. Bringing back the era of 1D and 1Ds lines but with new names and APS-C instead of APS-H.
... it feels like a step backwards- what will Canon achieve with a low-light capable, excellent AF, fast frame-rate APS-C body- didn't they have all that in an APS-H body in the 1DIV already? What can be gained additionally other than the ability to use EF-S lenses?
You get the best of EF by getting the sweet spot center, you get a wider selection, you get weather sealing more often, you get might quality build, you get lenses that work on EF and EF-s, and more.
I'm a "serious" amateur with not much money.
I'm starting to branch out into some easy working gigs (family portraits, pet photos, baby photos), nothing too pro, mostly just a taste to see if it's something I want to dive into more seriously (I THINK I'd really love to do wedding photography, but that's a little beyond my skill at the moment).
I have a 650D/T4i, a VAST upgrade to the 1000D/XS I shot for years with. Since it basically has the same sensor as the 7D it takes what I consider to be very nice pictures.
I long ago upgraded from the kit 18-55mm to the 18-135mm. I found the difference dramatic. My T4i came with the kit 18-135mm STM lens, which is rated even better then the original 18-135mm IS, but frankly image quality wise I don't see a vast difference (it is shaper at wider apertures, but not by a huge amount).
That said, the 18-135mm STM is still a kit lens, and while it is an amazing single lens solution for travel, I do wonder if it's "good enough" for outdoors portait type shoots, especially if people starting paying me money.
So, with all that said, I've looked into things and ALOT of people recommend that a good "next step" is the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6. It's not L glass obviously, but it is supposedly quite an upgrade from kit glass.
Would I notice much of a difference? I know there are other a couple other common options, but they are all quite a bit more expensive:
EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8
The 15-85mm is about $200 more then the 17-85.
The 17-55mm is WAY more, obvious since it's much faster, constant aperture. Alot of people say that lens is a L without the L designation.
According to DXOMARK there isn't much difference between my 18-135 and the 17-85 or 15-85. But alot of people say that DXOMARK isn't very close to real life. The 17-55 DOES score much better, but it's out of my price range, plus I don't like being limited to 55mm on the long end.
So, any advice? Is the 17-85 worth the upgrade? Should I stick with my 18-135 and save up for better glass?
Thanks for any advice!