Posts

Sep 10, 2016

MJ said:
Dear CR members, I don't quite understand the reason of the existence for this lens.

Sure it's nicely designed, weather sealed and doesn't change size, a bit shorter and lighter than a conventional designed lens, but for a walk around super tele lens it's still pretty bulky and heavy and *only* f4.

Point two is the currently still exorbitant price it's still (even with CPW specials going on).

There are other alternatives - like the 100-400 II which may not be as sharp and snappy but a hell of a lot more versatile, smaller and lighter at only one stop less for a THIRD of the price. If I were to drop more than 6K on a lens I'd go all the way and get 600/800mm lenses or a 200-400mm or at least a 400 2.8 II.

Am I totally missing something here?
I'm curious to hear what you think!

"What's the purpose/market of the 400mm f4 IS DO II?" Very simple! ME!!!!!

I have used a few Canon 400 F5.6 L lenses and they are very good, I have the Canon 100-400 Mk2 and it is very nice. The versatility of the 100-400 Mk2 for me is the close focus, as to the 100-399mm zoom - I could care less. Don't get me wrong it is a lovely lens and I am very pleased with my copy.

The 400 F2.8 is just superb but very heavy and simply too much for many users.

So we have the 400 DO. Have you tried one? If not do so - you might well be converted! The Mk1 version appears to have been very variable - I tried out 3 of them. One was pretty mediocre, however the other two out resolved my (then) Canon 600 F4 L IS at the same range - yes read that again. There was a little loss of contrast and colour vibrancy - but it was minor and easily corrected. The Mk2 400 DO virtually eliminates this and seems to have cured the copy variation as well.

If I could sell my 300 F2.8 L IS and 100-400 Mk2 and get close to the cost of a 400 DO mk2 I would do it in a heartbeat!

Sharlin · Sep 10, 2016

Don Haines said:
good for a laugh.....

Photography is the capture of light.... a 77mm lens captures 165 times as much light as a 6mm lens does.... no "magic technology" is going to make up for that!

Just you wait till Apple engineers perfect the groundbreaking technology of using Apple's famous reality distortion field to guide zillions of extra photons through that tiny lens... Who has the last laugh then?

Don Haines · Sep 9, 2016

AvTvM said:
Meatcurry said:

AvTvM said:

hmmm ... EOS M10 has no contacts to plug in an external EVF, correct?
And M5 comes with built-in EVF.
EVF-DC2 does hint to one more new EOS body [see Neuro's remark re. M10 -> M20 ?].
I don't think Canon would bring a new EVF for [now old] EOS M3 or G1X II.
Or maybe it is just for yet another needless Powershot G ...

Click to expand...

How about a G1x3 with a 24MP APSC sensor, surely that wouldn't be needless!

Click to expand...

to me it would be. I am not buying cameras without interchangeable lenses. When lens built in is sufficient, I us my smartphone.

I don't think Canon will put APS-C sensors in G powershots. 1" sensor seem to be perfect for that series. Otherwise lens gets way too big ...

With the exception of waterproof P/S cameras, I tend to agree with your statement.....

Don Haines · Sep 9, 2016

greger said:
While browsing the website of the camera store where I have bought all my cameras in the last ten years, I found the Wi-Fi Adapter W-E1 available in mid September for $59.99. So why are other camera stores charging $450.00 more to include this with the body? Buyer Beware!

You go into the camera store, ask about a Canon WiFi adaptor for the 7D2, they look it up on their computer, and it tells them that you are looking for the WFT-E7A.... They do not know yet about the W-E1.... Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity

tan oak · Sep 9, 2016

I read through the many M5 image leak comments today. I noticed the power switch has been moved to the left side and is a more traditional slider switch. On my M3 the damn power micro-button is recessed and requires precise placement of the tip of my index finger. Forget about using mittens or gloves.

Besisika · Sep 9, 2016

I am not or have been interested in mirrorless cameras and most likely will stick to Canon for a while, and yet I strongly suggest you find someone who has the Sony camera that you had in mind and if he can allow you to test it, that would be even better.
My point is that using a stabilizer is not a matter of just stabilization, there are many factors that you have to take into consideration; and the most important of them - my opinion - is weight. Smaller cameras may have advantage in many respect depending on what you do, especially if you are a one-band man shooting a wedding video for few hours. Many stabilizers nowadays accept only (or work better with) smaller cameras and you may end up with limited options.
Speed and time to balance the gear is another one, especially if you have to mount and un-mount it few times during the wedding.

chauncey · Sep 9, 2016

Thanks for that...it's impressive that, where applicable, it matches what I use on my 1Ds3

crashpc · Sep 9, 2016

I believe it will have fairly strong 80D AA filter. I would propably jump on that camera without even checking its capabilities, if it had AA-less sensor.

3kramd5 · Sep 9, 2016

bmwzimmer said:
You know why Sony has a higher sharpness score? Because the Canon stops down to f/32 while the Sony stops to f/22.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you know that the sony wouldn't have a higher score even if the Canon went to f/22?

Their sharpness charts, to me, have such poor presentation that it's impossible to tell what the data are. Which shade of green of the thin line against a white background is darker?

Even if you click them, the charts are practically unintelligible. Which lens is sharper wide open rather than averaged over the aperture range? I have absolutely no idea. They should include a mouseover readout.

Their acceptance charts at least show some differentiation.

TWI by Dustin Abbott · Sep 9, 2016

My previous of the Milvus 135mm f/2 is up today: http://bit.ly/2c4RMXB

Maximilian · Sep 9, 2016

Canon Rumors said:
... the Company’s 120-millionth EF-series interchangeable lens for EOS cameras ...

Horay! - stop -

And now let's move on.

9VIII · Sep 8, 2016

sebasan said:
Do you trust this guy?

You can trust Tony to say a lot of things and show you some pictures.
Practical value not guaranteed.
Really every reviewer should be approached with the same skepticism.
(Especially in this case since none of the reviewers so far have demonstrated an understanding of DPRAW.)

FEBS · Sep 8, 2016

Mario said:
Pleasant surprises: AF during Live View, it's fast, very fast. I can have my 200-400 on it, with a 2x extender, and flip in the internal 1.4x extender and in Live View, AF is still fast. Which brings me to the next pleasant surprise: the 1DXII seems to take extenders better than anything before. I never use the 2x extender a lot before as I could see it clearly having an adverse effect on IQ. With the 1DXII, that adverse effect seems way less, I now use the 2x extender a lot more. With the 200-400 and the 2x extender and the internal 1.4x in place, the IQ is still more than acceptable. This is now my preferred set-up in my garden hide. With this combination I am good for squirrels but also for the tiniest garden birds.

Mario

Hi Mario,

Something to try out. My 2.0 extender is only taking dust the last year. On 600mm I can use iT, but on the 200-400 I defenitely skipped iT. When back from Costa rica, I will give iT a try against on the 200-400.

Francois

Sep 8, 2016

unfocused said:
I know what you are saying Neuro, but another way to look at it is that Canon is very serious about the MILC market. They have seriously studied the market and very carefully balanced their investment with anticipated returns.

Certainly. I meant 'not serious' in the sense of not very invested from a product standpoint.

Sep 8, 2016

The 5D4 image RAWs also appeared soft in DPP 4.5 once I updated and was able to bring them in, not a whole lot better than what was on DPR to begin with. Not sure what is going on other than what I've speculated earlier. However, I'm positive the cause is not DPRAW as these are normal Raw files.

People should be getting this camera in their hands soon, so I expect a lot more follow-up re. this topic.

gts · Sep 8, 2016

The firmware update also requires an update to EOS Utility Version 3.5.0

Changes in the Firmware
Firmware Version 1.1.2 incorporates the following improvements to enhance functions.

1. The addition of a selectable color-tone option for the LCD monitor.
2. The addition of a function to append IPTC data.
3. The addition of a function to transfer only protected images.
4. The addition of a function to set the GPS positional data retention period.
5. An increase in the number of network connection settings that can be saved to a memory card from 20 to 40.
6. When retrying FTP transfer, extension of the minimum auto power off time to 10 minutes.
7. Improvement of wireless transmission when using Wireless File Transmitter WFT-E6.

The Version 1.1.2 firmware being released at this time is for cameras with Firmware Version 1.0.2 or earlier. If the camera's firmware is already Version 1.1.2, it is not necessary to update the firmware.
When updating the firmware of your camera, please first go over the instructions thoroughly before you download the firmware.
The firmware update takes approximately six minutes.

Notes:
(1) Once the camera is updated to Version 1.1.2, it cannot be restored to a previous firmware version (Version 1.0.0 / 1.0.2).
(2) "Camera setting files" generated on a camera with Firmware Version 1.0.2 or earlier cannot be used on a camera with Firmware Version 1.1.2 or later.
(3) EOS-1D X Mark II cameras with Firmware Version 1.1.2 require the latest version of EOS Utility. EOS Utility Version 3.5.0 or later can be downloaded from our Web site.
*EOS Utility Version 3.5.0 is supported on the following OSes:
Windows 10 / 8.1 / 7 SP1, Mac OS X v10.9 / 10.10 / 10.11
(4) Download the latest version of the Instruction Manual which contains information regarding the enhancements provided through this firmware update.

3kramd5 · Sep 8, 2016

privatebydesign said:
chauncey said:

My bad...I often make the assumption that all descent photographers are adept at PS CC.

Click to expand...

You are conflating a third aspect now.

DR is at capture, if your camera doesn't have it you can't get it back. In most shooting situations the cameras native DR is capable of capturing the scene DR.

The need for DR in the age of PS is unconnected. PS can't recover DR never captured, however good you are in PS.

The ability to get your intended output from the file you got at capture is unconnected to that file or the capabilities of PS.

To get your imagined output you need the input, DR, and the ability in PS. Unless you are happy with what you get OOC, and many people are.

Precisely.

PS comes into play as a replacement for wide DR if you plan is to composite multiple captures in order to construct a picture including levels outside the range of the camera I/O. One could just as easily ask "what relevance DOF plays in the age of photoshop".

And that third conflation is really bizarre.

auditom · Sep 8, 2016

Unless you need the reach of the 1.6 cropfactor all Canon full frame options are offering better IQ than the 7D M2.
I'm owning the 7D M2 and 3 Canon full frame machines 5Dc, 1DS M3 and 1DX M2. The look of the full frame images are easy discernible from the 7D images. They have a much more three-dimensional touch. YMHO

rs · Sep 8, 2016

hji1945 said:
szinski said:

I found this in the owner's manual (pg. 212):

With "Diffraction Correction", degraded resolution due to the low-pass filter, etc., is corrected in addition to diffraction.

Click to expand...

So a menu option to disable the effects of the AA filter?

Click to expand...

Will this work with a RAW file or only with JPEG?

Try DPP for converting CR2 files. With lesser cameras, Digital Lens Optimiser is there to claw back what's lost due to diffraction etc. It does a good job, but like any sharpening, it does it at the expense of noise.

IglooEater · Sep 7, 2016

dilbert said:
Jopa said:

Sator said:

The problem is that of all of the photography rumour sites SAR is the least judicious in screening out dodgy rumours, and instead shamelessly publishes any abject drivel they are fed as click-bait for the gullible masses.

Click to expand...

SAR is 99.999% clickbait for the affiliate links, the dude that runs it is a total jerk.
...

Click to expand...

To me it feels like nikonrumors is run by the same guy.

But sometimes this website feels similar in that the stories are about "What's on sale today".

Am I allowed to sing my little Coleridge somg here?

pretty please?

gsealy · Sep 7, 2016

I use the Technicolor Cinestyle on other Canon cameras. It works very well. If I had a 1DxII, then I would use it there too.

Phil Indeblanc · Sep 7, 2016

Imagine if it can be a selectable pixel! Then you have a winning featuer. As of now this feature is pretty useless, and with no doubt will have it OFF for 99.9% of the time.

Once you unlock the capability with selectable dual pixel raw, then maybe it can be like a "stack" focus image.

drs · Sep 7, 2016

I can't wait. I hope we can pre-order soon.

I use the 24; 35; 50 Art here on my Red Epic Dragon, and pulling focus is not fun -- wide open ;o)

If they do a FF 24-70 T2.0 I would be in even more excited (yes it might be a ~T3.0)

Click · Sep 7, 2016

;D Very funny. Thanks for the chuckle

9VIII · Sep 7, 2016

arthurbikemad said:
Only reason I play it down is people seem to think it will fix focus issues from head to toe, when the findings are not the case Canon will get bad press, but then they get bad press anyway haha, a mate of mine has been saying how he thinks it will resolve from nose to eye in portraits, I've said I think you will find its more like mid eyelash to tip.

DPRAW can give you focus correction from head to toe or nose to eye or any amount that you want, because you are in total control of the amount of correction available.
Right now all these ridiculous testers are just complaining about their own ignorance, setting up the camera to have a fraction of an inch of adjustment range and then whining about it.
You basically can't use the feature at 85mm f1.4, but maybe a lot of people would be better off if they did stop down a bit.

Ironically it's going to be people with zoom lenses and cheaper lenses who will benefit most.
Hopefully that fact will push the technology down to entry level bodies sooner rather than later.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics