Canon Rumors said:

Are there any more DSLRs coming in 2018?</p>
<p>We’re getting this question a lot, as a lot of people would love to see new EOS 7D and EOS 5DS series cameras coming to market.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, we don’t have even a hint of another DSLR coming in 2018. Not even a follow-up to the EOS 80D.</p>
<p>This may change over the coming months as we approach Photokina in September, but the current roadmap that we have doesn’t show another camera of significance coming. All we know for sure camera wise, is that there will be one G series PowerShot announced in 2018.</p>
<p>If this changes, we’ll obviously let you know.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

Click to expand...

I need about a year with a camera to Fully learn the nuance. I want a new rendition of the 1DXMKII for the 2020 Olympics. I hope canon woll give us time before rhe olympics to learn the camera and get the bugs out

I also use the 128 GB Extreme Pro SD card and love using it.

The 15-45 is a decent lens. It was looked down upon because it has a plastic mount, but IQ-wise it's as good as my 11-22 where they overlap, and I scores well on Photozone's MTF tests, comparable to the 18-55.

On this site, I just get patio heaters and fire pits. Boring. Yet on a news site, I've got a B&H ad advertising a Godox AD200 that I'm thinking of picking up. Much more interesting!

Very good for a first attempt, certainly much better than my own

Meowz!

Hi Folks.
I have irrefutable evidence that people are leaving Canon and buying Sony, at the LCE camera show in Southampton today I watched part of a Sony lecture, part of a conversation during the Q&A section,
S = Sony educator, A = person in audience.

S “Who shoots Sony?”
A ”I do.”
S ”What do you have and for how long?”
A “A7III all of today, I switched systems here.”
S “Do you still use some of your old glass?”
A “No I swapped everything!”
S “That was brave! I have had my A7Something for a while now and I still use my older Sony as my main camera, I won’t use the new one for my main camera yet, too many menu options to get used to and I’m not comfortable that I have mastered them to a level where I trust myself not to make a mistake!”

This is not a direct quote, but paraphrased for brevity and because I can’t remember the minutia of the discussion.

Edit.
Ok, no reaction!
I can also verify that two people I overheard had tried Sony bodies with adapted lenses and did not like the Sony so had gone back to the native bodies for their lenses! 1 move to Sony, 2 leaving Sony but those body sales still count to Sony, I guess two somebodies got cheap low mileage Sony bodies!
End edit.

Cheers, Graham.

Amazing one!

MrFotoFool said:

You may want to post it in this thread which is for pronghorn and other ungulates: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23483.0

(edit - I see that you are the one who started the other thread also, so obviously you know about it. Sorry for not checking first.)

Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me. It's been so long since I checked that thread that I forgot it existed. ;D

I had the 20-35/3.5-4.5 once. It was quite sharp - much better than my 20/2.8. And smaller than the other EF wide angle zooms. I regret selling it.
Certainly the 16-35/4 is sharper (and bigger and more expensive).
But the lens is not a "classic" (like the mark I version of the 50/1.8 with metal mount), so you won't pay a premium for it.

Great... a nice soft image... just like the 6D2 produces.. Sorry, but Canon's in camera IS is junk... totally worthless..

Interesting. Get ready for the disappointment.

Jack

No updates to report yet.

When I sent my lens in to Midwest Camera I was informed that their lens service tech had a 5-6 week back log. We're just entering week 5 now, so I'm happy to wait a while longer for an update.

Talys said:

jayphotoworks said:

If you refer to the A7III review on Dpreview, you can see within the same type of tests, the A7III outperforms the 6DII on all fronts including autofocus tracking (even with the 6DII's DPAF). ....

Click to expand...

The A7M3 has much better autofocus TRACKING of certain subjects like human faces. There are some cool features like face registration and face preference, and of course, Eye AF is great for human subjects in well-lit conditions. But it is TERRIBLE in comparison to the 6DII in:

- Raw autofocus speed in good conditions
- Raw autofocus speed in dimly lit conditions
- Autofocus in very poor lighting where an AF illuminator is needed -- is excellent in 6DII and unusable in Sony
- Accuracy of spot selection in PDAF mode (the Sony is good for choosing the right point in accurate focus-magnified Autofocus in Contrast Detect mode, but then it's painfully slow)
- Continuous autofocus of a small subject by manually tracking it (such as a bird)
- Autofocus hunting in non-continuous AF modes
- Autofocus at smaller apertures (where the Sony uses crappy, stopped down autofocusing)

To me, every cool feature in the A7M3 is dwarfed by relatively poor autofocus. 20 steps of DR does nothing for me if my bird is blurry.

Click to expand...

And this is why people, whenever possible, should try out cameras for themselves. Even if you think DPR (or anyone else) doesn't bring their biases to the table- or even if they don't do it intentionally - their tests are not your tests. In their test, the Sony is more capable, in Talys's ACTUAL USE, the 6D II has far more capable AF.

This is not to say that the Sony isn't going to be the best choice for some folks. If DR is of great importance and your shooting depends on needing more, than the Sony sensor, in both testing and people's experience, is more capable when it comes to DR. But some of the most important reasons a camera might be considered capable aren't tested (and, yes, some are subjective). Things like reliability, ergonomics and ease of use, weather sealing, exposure accuracy and color.

While not a Sony or Canon, I recently talked to a photographer shooting our company photos with a Nikon D750 - a camera often mentioned here on CR. He'd had it for a year, he said, and liked it...aside from the fact that he'd had to have it in for repairs three times already! So, reliability matters - perhaps most of all!

dp3294 said:

I suspect the C200 *is* the C100M2’s upgrade.

Click to expand...

I will be renting and testing C200 soon on a live event, shooting indoor and outdoor.
I tested C300 Mkii and i think it is a great camera. The image quality and the codecs make it a powerfull camera. I only tested MXF 410mb - 10bit 4.2.2 in 1080p - 25p and found it to be great for color grading.
I find C300 Mkii a little to sharp on the closeup shots for my taste with Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM .
I suspect that C200 Raw to be more sharp than C300 Mkii but i don't want that.
I like the compressed MXF from C300 Mkii. For weddings a new C100 with technology from C200 and C300 is a must. It can be done and people deserve it. People choose to buy from Canon and deserve top quality products. Olso Canon C200 should get Prores Raw out to external recorders. Now Sony Fs5 ii has it, next Blackmagic Poket 4K.
Time has past and technology is moving forward Canon, small, lightweight, portable is the way to go.
Still no rumors on the C100 Mkiii. C100 Mkii is old tech now, even if the image is good.
C200 does not justify the cost, because C100 Mkii looks a better option when the budget is limited.
Look at Nikon D800 when it came out it had excelent picture quality. Even today it a great photography camera. Now we have D810 and D850 at almost the same price.

Simply a very expensive, mischievous, publicity seeking lawsuit by PETA, a group composed of trust-fund babies with too much time on their hands, and a whole lot of self-loathing they've never worked out in therapy.

Well, that's not how consumer product law works in the US. The onus is on the company to prove that something the customer did was the cause of the failure, it's not on the customer to prove what they did did not cause the failure. Companies may try to tell you otherwise to dissuade you from trying to make a claim, but legally that isn't how it works.

But, you're certainly free to believe whatever you'd like to.

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:

I can verify that all of the lens corrections do in fact work...quite beautifully, actually. It made me aware of just how much "tweaking" Canon lenses benefit from in camera.

Click to expand...

wow...

Think Sigma did really has some kind of agreement with Canon to include the lens profile in the body.

gordonbb said:

LDS said:

gordonbb said:

That’s too bad. I still have a half exposed roll in the fridge with some images I’d like to get developed :

Click to expand...

AFAIK some lab can develop them as B/w images.

Click to expand...

interesting but one of the shots is of my kids by the railing of Niagara Falls mimicking a shot of myself and my siblings 40 years earlier. While I like B&W the original is Kodachrome and it was the tone of the colours I wanted to recreate as much as the composition.

Click to expand...

It looks there's someone who recreated the process and could process your slides:

https://shootfilmco.com/blogs/shoot-film-co/kodachrome-processed-in-color-seriously

Of course these people have to recreated the process from scratch, it's not Kodak official chemicals, for examples he outlines the dyes may not be as stable.

birdforthought said:

Great post and I know its old but.... I have a somewhat opposite question. I currently have the Canon 100-400 Mk I (on a 7D mkI). Yes both 1st generation. I really like this lens/body combination. However, I'm now looking for a more range and of course better low light capability (I photo only birds).

So... without spending $11K what would be the next lens in addition to the 100-400 MkI

FYI: I also have the 1.4x TC version 1 but rarely ever use it

Thanks,
Greg

Click to expand...

You get a lot more low light capability for your dollar by going to FF. If you are focal length limited with your crop, its going to cost you to get a faster and longer lens.

I'd suggest a FF body and crop the image as long as you don't have to crop too much. You can move from 7D MK I to a 5D MK III and gain a lot of light sensitivity and reduced noise.

sanjosedave said:

Is there a Canon mount (Canon or other brand) portrait lens that you can use very wide open without CA?

Just saw an image from a Canon 85mm 1.8 at 1.8 and there was CA all over the place

Click to expand...

The older EF, non-L Lenses (50/1.4, 85/1.8) have more CA. In photos where that matters, I will not choose those. The focus ring of my 50/1.4 always gets stuck anyways, so it's not like I get much use out of it anymore.

On the cheap end of the spectrum, EF50/1.8 has very well controlled CA, nearly all of which can be corrected in post. As mentioned above, the new 85/1.4 is also excellent -- but, obviously, a lot more money

Also, the 70-200/2.8 and 100L/2.8 are both quite good in controlling chromatic aberration.

For portraits i would go with the 85. It is autofocus, and a very slight movement forward or backward of the model ruins the focus if manual (except you have great skills)

The creative effects with the T-S lenses like miniatures etc may be boring after not so long time, then you have expensive and difficult to use lenses with slow aperture.

Or maybe, if slower aperture is acceptable, at the aperture of the T-S lenses, 50 and 85mm options are cheap or you maybe already have them

April is almost over and still no sign of this lens. What happened?

My rather uneducated comment would be that the photographer still has to be very careful about background choices irrespective of lens used and its bokeh characteristic. Just because objects are not clearly identifiable doesn't mean they can't be producing undesirable visual effects. Easier said than done, of course and some subjects can't or won't cooperate.

Jack