Gantz said:

transpo1 said:

Valvebounce said:

Hi transpo1.
Not sure what leads you to that conclusion, they will probably need to implement 4K in 7DII to retain market share against other manufacturers that have it in comparable price / quality bodies already. I don't think the cinema range will be under threat from a 7DII.
It is good that Canon are keeping abreast of the 4K standards and implementing changes via the firmware though.

Cheers, Graham.

transpo1 said:

There you have it- definitely no 4K in the 7DII if anyone was still holding out hope.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks, Graham, I completely agree and hope you're right -- they should implement 4K -- but am just reacting to the current 1080p video specs being bandied about.

Lee Jay said:

transpo1 said:

There you have it- definitely no 4K in the 7DII if anyone was still holding out hope.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the opposite. This looks more like additional ways to segregate the Cinema line from the consumer line if they start pushing 4k down the ladder toward the consumer products like the 7D replacement.

Click to expand...

Gosh, you know -- I was a bit sleepy this morning So looking at from the reverse angle, you may be right. This could be just to appease the Cinema EOS crowd, some of whom could be angry if a 4K 7DII is announced.

We'll know soon enough. I thought it strange there is RAW acceleration for Intel Iris Pro Graphics, which is a consumer graphics card, without a consumer range camera from Canon that does RAW video. Interesting.

I'd be somewhat satisfied if the 7DII does RAW 1080p and 4K compressed

Click to expand...

Are you a PRO?.

Because in a different thread someone wrote PROS will not use the 7D MK2 for work even if it had 4K.

Something i can not agree to when i look at the GH4.

I would be interested what the common senus is on this topic, on this more geeky than artsy forum.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am a pro.

Pros will use it, even if it's just compressed Motion JPEG 4K like the 1DC.

Steve said:

GaryJ said:

as we say in Aus 'we are not playing for sheep stations'

Click to expand...

what does this even mean? I can't even begin to parse this weird proverb

Click to expand...

Be careful what you ask for. Do you really want to know about Australians, sheep and the games they play?

This topic has been moved to Third Party Manufacturers.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22436.0

Got excited for a moment as well but you guys are right, I remember seeing them as always non-returnable.

I wouldn't imagine 4K in the non-cinema line for a long time unfortunately

With the weaker Yen, it is probably a good time to import from Japan, or from Hong Kong. Here in the USA, there are a lot of ebay sellers selling Asian imports at low prices, mostly due to the strong dollar.

The dollar is getting stronger recently which means better deals elsewhere.

Thanks, I had feared as much . I'll have to ask Fotodiox directly then.

There is the 500mm f/4.5 non IS. Very good lens, but parts for repair are few if any. Fortunately, if one dies, the used parts are worth more than a operating lens when parted out.
[/quote]

Oh, now that isn't good news. On the other hand I've never dropped a lens either. Knock on wood. Of course if I were to drop a lens it would probably be a big one.... Has anybody had to repair one lately? If so what experience?

At this point I'm interested in the f4. I'm assuming I can get that repaired for a few more years.

tculotta said:

Mr. Mackguyver,

I have had the Sigma 180 f/2.8 macro for less than a week and can state unequivocally that I LOVE it. For sharpness, I think it beats my Canon L 100 f/2.8 macro and I love that lens a lot, too.

Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me know. I really like my Canon 180 macro, but wish it had better bokeh (when stopped down it gets very octagonal). My copy seems really sharp, too, but the Sigma is a much newer lens and seems to do better in the tests I've seen.

I would also really love to see an IS 50mm. Even a f2.0 if it was tack sharp wide open.

I shot my first all prime weddings last week and reluctantly used the 50mm 1.8 as I hear so much bad news about the 1.4 and the 1.2 is totally out of my price range.

I got by and the shots are decent but nothing compared to the 100mm f2.0 that I reached for whenever possible.

Not hearing much noise about a new 50 though despite so many rumours in recent years.

The Sigma 50 Art looks awesome but the size / weight makes it really unappealing for me.

tolusina said:

If this was a car forum, someone would be sure to post, "Oh, that'll buff right out".
---
So, please tell, aside from the shutter issue, how are you liking MF?
I'm seriously considering a 645Z, wondering how Hassy's implementation of that sensor performs?

Click to expand...

It's great. I should have jumped sooner and the H3DII files are beautiful under 200 iso. I sync my Einstein @ 1/800th easy and lose 1/2 stop syncing speed lites at that speed. The lenses are amazingly sharp aand I got to rent the 210mm HC. It makes my 135L look broken and what I especially like about hassy is the second hand prices for lenses are really good.

Overall, I'd drop down to an aps camera before ditching the hassy now. I enjoy working with it.

gwflauto said:

A couple of years ago, in the discussion of amateurs about cameras, the camera sensors were an issue quite often. But at that time everybody talked about the oil or "dust" problem on Nikon sensors: On the sensors of the D800 and the D600.
I didn't hear anything about DR of Canon sensors. That seems to be a concern for only a very small fraction of photography enthusiasts.

Click to expand...

yes that is one nikon model with issues.
nikon has lost some reputation too because of this debacle.
but let´s not make this nikon vs. canon.

when product reviews mention the sensor performance in such a way, it is negativ. there is imo no way around it.

when the 5D MK2 came out people praised the sensor.
i bet that was the reason many new customers decided to buy canon.

now dpreview writes that just for the image quality you can also buy a olympus m43 with a smaller sensor instead of a canon 70D.
because basically they offer nearly the same image quality.

In terms of image quality the 70D is essentially on a par with its rivals. The Nikon D7100 captures a fraction more resolution but the 70D comes closer to offering comparable low-light performance. This isn't enough to stop the Olympus OM-D E-M1 closing much of the gap on the Canon, despite its smaller sensor - leaving anyone without an existing investment in lenses with a tough decision to make.

Click to expand...

i don´t know how the canon managers make their decisions and i guess they know what they are doing.

but shouldn´t they try to be the forerunner in sensor performance too... as market leader? if only for PR reasons!

I'm still trying to find a sunset where some some subject in the scene hits the noise floor of the D810 at ISO 64. I just can't. I need one of those special spectacular sunsets that happen like once a year where the clouds light up half an hour after sunset.

I had similar trouble with a Pentax 645z at ISO 100. These sensors are incredible.

Remember: shadow SNR is still limited by shot/photon noise. Only extending FWC or sensor size will help here.

markko said:

preppyak said:

Apparently the D610, Df, and D810 aren't enough in the $2-3000 range.

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/08/08/another-full-frame-nikon-dslr-camera-coming-for-phiotokina.aspx/

I gotta say, I'm glad Canon isn't getting into this silliness.

Click to expand...

Looking at the link below, I think they'll announce the D820... ;D

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3182497502/nikon-announces-service-advisory-for-d810-bright-spots

Click to expand...

software issues <> hardware issues. remember the 5DMkIII light leaks? 1DsMKIII oil. those are the kind of stuff to watch out from. software patches are nicer.

in other news, the truth will be out in just a few days (10) to be exact
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/09/02/nikon-d750-dslr-camera-to-be-announced-in-10-days.aspx/

I'll rent one to check it out, but thinking about going to 24MP just isn't going to cut unless it had something like 16stops of DR or some other magic. Even the high ISO will likely have the DR of a fax machine as it is often the case with all the high ISO images out there, thus not interested.

privatebydesign said:

psolberg said:

and if you ask me, Nikon's lineup seems really good if you're looking to upgrade to full frame:

D4s for professional sports
D810 for studio and landscape
D750 for semi-professional action and wedding and event pros.
D610 for advanced amateurs

Desperation? more like excellent planning for if canon had such lineup many here would be praising their wide selection instead of making stupid comments about how this somehow weakens their system. Many people have asked for this camera and nikon listened which IMO is a quality canon should follow.

Click to expand...

Well surely that equates to:-
D4s 1DX for professional sports
D810 MIA for studio and landscape (though Canon seem to have been of the opinion that their sensor tech and higher MP in the 135 format are not a market they are interested in)
D750 5D MkIII for semi-professional action and wedding and event pros.
D610 6D for advanced amateurs

Of course you failed to mention the Df, and that is the one that that has thrown the Nikon FF lineup the curved ball and elicited the smirks and derision it seems to have deserved.

Click to expand...

the Df is more of a nostalgia item and not something you really see used in a commercial or professional setting, specially not with the D750 being a "proper" body that better fits the needs of its pro and semi-pro audience. But yes, that is a choice.

You've correctly mapped the offerings to canon's which demonstrates that Nikon is in fact not really throwing too many models out there. In fact they still lack the D4X which is a pro fissional grade high res body, probably clocking at 40-50MP. It has been rumored like the canon high MP body, and likely in prototype phase, just like with canon. Ultimately I can't complain. Choices in the full frame game are great, and add to that what sony is doing with mirrorless, which is ahead of anybody. We're really just staring the golden age of full frame digital.

Canon will off course go high MP in some model. Just like when Nikon was the first to push the religion of the high ISO with the D3, then only to have canon follow, and a high end APSC body like the D300 and have canon follow. And now that thankfully we have competition, seeing manufacturers try the other's formula is welcomed. I hope we never see a canon/nikon like era of total dominance again for it means stagnation, lack of choice, and worse equipment for all. Thankfully those days are long gone

I don't know what it means but how is this a rumor?

vscd said:

I heard the Canon 5D Mark 3 has no interchangeable screens anymore? Would be a shame for manual users like me ;( Can anyone confirm this?

Click to expand...

Confirmed.

I guess I'd have to admit I'm no expert when it comes to tripods - I bought my first one (and last one) over
40 years ago and still use it on a semi-regular basis. Although Leitz quit selling the Tilt-all several years ago,
it is still available in the original design and a quite reasonable price. It is made of high quality aircraft aluminum,
is not too heavy, has reliable legs and an infinitely adjustable head.

I got my CPW notification of the refurb price at $750 and I bought it, before I even realized that the price drop was in effect. I'm sure the refurbs will go lower eventually, on a 20% sale or something, but I don't want to wait. Everybody expected Canon to drop the price of this lens eventually. If they'd released it as a 6D kit lens in the US, the used prices would have been here already, although they're close now.

I just want to put my 28-105 back on my old film camera, and get my small-light standard zoom spot filled. The 24-105 IS STM rumor sounds interesting, but I'm tired of waiting. I expect I'd be able to sell the 24-70 for basically my purchase price in a year if need be.

privatebydesign said:

EchoLocation said:

privatebydesign said:

Who cares? Every thread will be hijacked by people telling us our cameras are crap, even if we are happy with them they will try and tell us why we shouldn't be, even when we tell them we understand their point, and it is valid, they will still go on and on and on and on..........

Click to expand...

serenity now!

Click to expand...

I try, I truthfully try, but it is like a car accident, you really don't want to look as you drive by but for some morbid reason you can't stop yourself. Now they are saying you can't print a Canon file from any camera above 13" x 19", they honestly believe there is a 36% deficiency in Canon sensors, though how you can quantify that to 36% is a mystery, they are crazy, truthfully crazy. Don't they realise they sound like the crazy guy in the parking lot at the mall?

I think I am not going to log in for a few days.

Click to expand...

Don't beat around the bush, man. Why not actually use my name? Just call me crazy and be done with it.

BTW, I went through the math. You can disagree with the method if you wish, that's your prerogative, but you know EXACTLY HOW I quantified that 36%. You have also gravely misinterpreted what those calculations represented...or, since I know your an intelligent individual, your just purposely misrepresenting what I said. In the end, I still demonstrated that the 1D X had the advantage...so either you only read part of that post, or, again, your purposely misrepresenting.

Anyway, not here to hijack the thread. Just, PBD, you want to call me out...call me out. Don't beat around the bush.

Don't worry too much about pixel density - pixel quality/performance is much more important.
I went from APSC (1.6 crop) to APSH (1.3 crop) to one of the lowest MP full frame cameras on today's market at 18Mp (Nikon do some 16Mp full frame bodies). My most used lens is a Canon 800mm F5.6 L IS so according to many commentators I am losing 480mm compared to 1.6 crop and 240mm compared to 1.3 crop. Am I missing the loss of reach? To put it mildly - no!
My previous camera (a Canon 1D4) made the likes of the 7D look somewhat wanting and my current (relatively low MP) 1DX is significantly better in this and all other respects than the 1D4 was.
The only advantages of the APSC cameras is that they offer decent/good quality images in a lighter and cheaper package - probably why they are so popular!

LovePhotography said:

Well, I haven't tried this with other lenses, but this certainly seems disturbing... Is this true at other f/stops as well?
Could you post pictures of the second lens trial?
Does this mean that, as of now, this lens should not be on my wish list? The only reason I wanted one is for the sharpness! I have several other lens (less sharp) that cover 50mm (or come close).
I had a Canon 50mm 1.4 that I sold in anticipation of buying this lens, but is the 1.4 a better lens (at 1/3rd the price)?

Click to expand...

I really love the sharpness. As long as you focus using center AF point and then recompose, you're completely safe. Attached is a small test using the Spyder lenscal where you can compare its sharpness at f/1.4 using manual and AF. Both are a crop from the midframe.

I haven't tried it at other f-stops so this I don't know. I would still keep it on the wish list. Apparently Sigma can fix this issue and using only center AF is no problem for portrets (which I use it a lot for).

Just one unavoidable disappointing fact: it has ugly bokeh compared to the canon 50 1.4.

Hey CR Team,

I tried searching this in the forums, but couldn't effectively isolate my question.

Metabones speed booster ultra

http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-E-BM2

Its idea is to increase the amount of light and reduce CA, vignetting, etc blah blah blah

So for a 24-70 2.8, it changes it to a 17-50 F2.

Is this a legitimate accessory to have, especially while travelling so don't need a dedicated wide angle lens.
I am assuming not because otherwise no one would buy 16-35/17-40, but just wondering if anyone had any experience at all with them

Thanks guys & girls

Dylan777 said:

cellomaster27 said:

Random Orbits said:

Dylan777 said:

tolusina said:

Not the official photographer?
Then just the 50, be everywhere while staying out of the way.

Click to expand...

+1...let's the pro does his/her best.

Click to expand...

Although I would love to have a capable "photographer" at every table/group if possible. There are many moments that are missed because there is only so much one or two pros can cover.

I remember placing those disposable 35mm film cameras at each table when my wife and I got married. I was expecting a lot of shots to be bad, but I wasn't expecting THAT many shots to be bad. I'm pretty sure it was not worth the cost of those disposable cameras and the cost of processing the film for what we got out of it. Cell phone cameras are a lot better than those crappy disposable cameras, but a lot of those shots are still no better (as observed from all the FB links from a recent wedding we attended).

Click to expand...

I was attending a wedding recently.. did not take my camera but what I saw was disturbing.. 24-105, 24-70 F4, 16-35, on both wedding shooters. Then I saw an audience attendee with a nikon D4s and a 70-200 2.8 (hopefully saved the day). And just by observing the wedding photographers, no offense, made me very worried as to if they will get many usable shots. The moments, which I would consider important (kissing, putting on the ring, etc), they were shooting at the sides or far down the aisle with those lenses. yikes. Since you're not the official photog, you don't need all that gear. But if I were you, I would take the 50 and the 70-200. The 70-200 is definitely a large lens but allows you to stay back and snap some shots. Maybe take the wide angle? Definitely not the flash if you take the 50. Spare batteries and most importantly, enjoy the wedding. cheers

Click to expand...

The important thing is, did you see they carry any flashes?

To get sharper images, most wedding pros prefer to shoot with flashes indoor.

Click to expand...

Well, the wedding was outdoors so no need for flashes at that point. But I mean one photographer with the 24-105 was way down the aisle when the bride and groom kissed (not paying attention) and the other was taking photos of the wedding party from the sides with a wide lens. I was so disturbed. Plus you could hear the shutter going spray mode while the photographer(s) was moving.. Yikes. I was so distracted.
They did have some flashes setup for the indoor reception in various strategic locations.

wickidwombat said:

great review and not unexpected outcome i think i agree the 28-300 might be a better option even on a crop
especially since canon have the 10-18 to make a much better crop wide end

i still think you need to review the samyang/ rokinon 8mm f2.8 on the eos M its fantastic

Click to expand...

I'll give it a try at some point. I'm interested in seeing how the 12mm f/2 performs (it's on the way to me right now), and would like to get a copy of the EF-M 11-22mm to compare it to.

Oops, I posted this under a parallel thread and should have done it here:

Keep in mind that the "price drops" largely match rebate pricing. I don't think we should assume too much until we see if rebates return with even lower prices.

For the past few years, Canon (and others) have pretty much had a constant cycle of never-ending rebates. Perhaps their marketing research has show that rebates are no longer effective and permanent price drops are a better approach. (With the price "drop" actually being about the same as rebate pricing in most cases)

I also wonder about the impact on the MAP system. Rebate periods were used to enforce MAP. Yet, MAP has proven to be virtually unenforceable no matter what manufacturers try. If Canon permanently lowers prices and then no longer uses rebates to enforce MAP, they may be throwing in the towel and effectively giving retailers more flexibility on pricing. From Canon's perspective, MAP was done as a favor to retailers and had no impact on the company's profits. Perhaps they just decided that it's not worth the hassle to try to swim against the current and try to enforce prices that retailers refuse to charge anyway.

Hello
www.500px.com/Vgramatikov

As per my opinion tamron 150-600 is much better than stacked tc`s on vario lens.
So far i thing it is even as good as 300 2.8L IS mk1 + 1.4 or as good as 400 5.6L on equivalent focal lenght.
I mean may be little bit softer but on the field optically is close witch is good for zoom with such a price tag.

Of course i speak only optically. Like AF, and other features i can not tell. I have experience with 300 2.8 IS L and 400 5.6L both owned.

Tamron seems to be best value/choice for the money!!! If i don`t have 400 5.6L the tamron i next in my list.
But for now i thing 400 5.6L have some advantages optically and like AF speed and accuracy witch for me is far more important than zoom and i have 200 2.8L if i decide to work with close subjects.

Of course vario is more flexy at some moments and thats why i highly recommended the Tamron.
Good pack for the money and why not best zoom in it`s class. Better than all Sigmas and as good as Nikon and Canon versions for much less money.

Of course third party means problems with AF but now always.
And don`t forget the IS in Tamron. Canon 400 5.6 do not have it.
It is usable at many cases on the field. Yes you can not freeze action with IS but this is not the case when IS can save a shot!!! All long handholdable lens need IS/VR/VC.