Max Rockbin said:

Another reason Cine lenses are more expensive: Calibration.

Roger Cicala of lensrentals.com in another post (not the one quoted earlier in the thread) was writing about sample variation and how shocked the average photographer would be at the differences between even high end pro lenses right out of the box. Since as part of their business, they routinely re-align elements and test the lenses very carefully, he pondered how much effort would go in to making sure every lens is perfectly tweaked before it leaves the factory.

He reckoned it'd about triple the cost of the lens. Which, he noted, is about what Cine lenses go for...

Click to expand...

That might be true if you have a person do it. If you design an automated calibration rig that tunes each lens precisely before final assembly, it would be a fixed equipment cost that, amortized over millions of lenses, should have minimal impact on the cost of the lens.

The big cost of Cine lenses is lack of amortization. All of the design is spread across a much smaller number of lenses, because most people don't demand parfocal lenses for still photography (even though they really should). If Canon designed every lens to be parfocal, the impact of parfocal designs on the cost of lenses should also be pretty small. The same goes for other design decisions, such as lack of focus breathing.

So basically, they're expensive because not many people buy them, and not many people buy them because they're expensive. The day someone new enters the market and decides to make all their general-purpose lenses be up to Cine lens standards, Canon will suddenly find ways to bring the cost down.

AcutancePhotography said:

Canon1 said:

I sent it in to canon and they "fixed" it. When I got it back, I ran the test again, and Canon had done absolutely nothing to fix the actual problem. So I sent it back, this time with all the FoCal printouts. A few days later my camera came back with some hardware work and it was fixed.

Click to expand...

Yikes! Some service huh? I hope they did not charge you for the first "fix".

Click to expand...

No charge. I was several months outside of warranty too... So kudos to canon.

Max Rockbin said:

But I actually bought a Canon 70D over any other camera (including mirrorless options) because THIS lens existed. I do real estate video and stills. This lens is Very Wide, Stabilized (!), and quiet too. Is there another low distortion superwide that can claim all that (or even just being stabilized?).

Click to expand...

16-35/4L IS released along with this one FF UWA with IS, low CA, albeit not exactly cheap. But optically best in the Canon UWA zoom lenses.

Woody said:

BozillaNZ said:

No new sensor == no sale for me.

Click to expand...

Same here

Click to expand...

i thought the same.

but then i saw images from the sony a7r with the metabones adapter and canon lenses.
i don´t need fast AF. 95% of my motivs are not moving.
but i want the best low iso image quality i can get. and that´s what sony offers me.

had i prefered to buy canon?... 100%
but canon s not offering a competing product.

privatebydesign said:

Yes, you guys call 'useable toanlity' 'sensor DR', I have never understood that to be a way of stating 'photographic DR', I only know and understand the difference in recordable luminosity values.

Again, I think this is an area where the technologists have confounded and annoyed the photographers. When I, and millions of others, think of photographic DR we are thinking about the difference in scene luminosity we can actually record, not the point at which the dark tones become noisy. Replicating that capability on devices with a much smaller luminosity range is not and never has been the question.

So who has some RAW step wedge files to upload?

Click to expand...

But 'the difference in scene luminosity we can actually record' is exactly what DxO is measuring. Because their DR is defined as the brightest bright vs. the darkest dark that is not lost in noise. 'Not lost in noise' is where SNR = 1, according to DxO. This is known as 'engineering dynamic range'.

Would you like DxO's lower cutoff to be higher, since you can't use SNR = 1 (where tones are completely lost to noise)?

SNR = 1 is used as the lower cutoff b/c different folks could argue till the cows come home what SNR is usable.

If that's what bugs you, then use Bill Claff's excellent analyses, where he defines a 'photographic DR' using a higher SNR cutoff:

http://cl.ly/Y2gu/D810_vs_A7S-PixelLevel.png

The differences between cameras are still fairly similar to DxO's findings, but the absolute numbers are different. Higher SNR cutoffs on the low end tend to shrink the differences between cameras of the same sensor size. After a certain point, a higher SNR cutoff won't even distinguish between cameras of similar sensor sizes, b/c the lower SNR cutoff will be dominated by the effects of shot noise (which'll be similar between cameras of similar sensor sizes), so that's not helpful either.

But Bill Claff's results vs. DxO's normalized results is just half a stop different (2.5 EV vs 3 EV) for the D810 vs. 5D3 for example. Not exactly earth shattering.

Is that what this entire debate, and all this arguing, is actually about in the end?

V8Beast said:

Wow, if the dude in the video was a foot taller, he'd look like a clone of one of my photography instructors.

Click to expand...

If he was 10 times smarter he would be Einstein. ???

I don't have time to watch another self-assurance video.

BUT, the OP's point is valid and I see that other co's making camera gear are "thinking differently."
If you read the interview from imaging-resource a while back about the Samsung NX1

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23052.0

you'll see that Samy's taking this idea and running with it, at least as far as the hardware goes.
What kind of photographic app tools they'll come up with to control this high bandwidth beast I can't yet fathom as I'm one of those who still likes both feet in the old paradigm for now. I can imagine a variety of specialty focus trap features will be at the forefront.

I just don't believe it will be $3000. I do understand(and so does Canon) that there is a ton of demand for this lens, but not at this price point...

Steve said:

privatebydesign said:

I find that taking an hour or two to learn the PS way of doing it pays off big in the long run. I have Topaz but rarely (never) use it, because I end up doing a YouTube search on how to do the same thing in PS and invariably there are a few videos that demonstrate it.

Besides, knowing why something works as it does can really help rather than just pushing a slider.

But as you say, we each find our own best way of getting there.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that there is a lot that can be done better when you dig into the PS interface. Its a really powerful and extensive program. Some of the methods are really time consuming like making tone masks to do micro contrast adjustments when compared to adjusting some sliders in Topaz Detail. I agree that knowing what's happening helps you in PP rather than just slamming the "Make Awesome" slider all the way to the right in some plugin. Before I got a bunch of the Topaz plugins I was doing multichannel noise reduction and tone masked contrast adjustments and all that stuff so I kind of know whats going on a little bit. Enough to recognize that Topaz Denoise was basically doing the same actions but with the controls laid out more simply in a single window with some other tools (like detail recovery and color correction) close at hand. But of course, YMMV as always.

Click to expand...

We are definitely painting from the same brush Steve

I don't find making tone masks time consuming though, and it is a great example, once you know how to make and target your own it can work out faster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPszOHLmSws

I've since gotten used to the little bit of weight. It only felt heavy because I'd never had a lens that large before. I'm sure one day I'll buy one larger. When that day comes you'll know because I'll be the guy panhandling with a sign that says, "Sold my home to buy a great white. Spare change appreciated."

privatebydesign said:

sulla said:

Without wanting to start a flaming war here, BUT: I fail to see the purpose of both the TSE17 and TSE24:

• Correcting for perspective can be done in LR very well. No Shift is needed in the digital age. (Yes, I know, you'll lose some pixels. So, no need for the "S".
• Tilt is useless on those 2 lenses, because, except for very close close-ups, everything is sharp at any aperture anyway. So no need for the "T".

I can put the tilt to very good use on my TSE90, however, because playing with the focal plane is very useful for me for macro and product photography. It can also be of good use in architecture, but I haven't explored that use yet.

Admittedly, Shift is useless on my TSE90.

So, why not give the TSE-45 or the TSE90 a try instead of the 17 or 24??

Click to expand...

Minor shifting can be done very easily in post, bigger corrections eat into IQ surprisingly quickly. Look 2/3 down the page for a perfect example here http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/tilt_and_shift_ts-e.html

As for tilt being useless on these focal lengths, that is pure nonsense. Look at the bridge and tower crops here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/nikon_24_pc.shtml

Going from my own experiences these differences are noticeable in relatively small prints, certainly in 17" prints.

I would argue, and have, that tilt in a macro situation is of very limited utility, particularly with Canon TS-E's and their mere 8º of tilt which, when combined with the very short J distances often used in macro imagery, make it almost entirely ineffective most of the time.

Click to expand...

And on top of the reduced IQ from using software instead of lens shift, you have to crop the image (substantially) and lose what you originally framed. I would also argue that optical shift, compared to software based shift generates totally different results. I am very fond of my TS-E lenses for that reason.

Yes, he is now a Canon explorer of light, so he gets to try out new pre-production models. I'm convinced he is so good that he could make a coke bottle work for a lens.

distant.star said:

.
Seems like you'd want to go through and see if this hasn't already been posted here.

Click to expand...

Yep. You got me on that one.

Im looking into getting a powershot G16, ok its an older model compared to whats out there, the only thing that is putting me off is the rumours of dust inside the lens ......

Could anyone tell me how true, or give me any feedback about this...

From all the comments on CR about the IQ of the 24-70 MKII and the reviews on the internet, this lens seems to have stellar IQ. I just tested it once to compare it with the 24-70VC of Tamron. Currently the price difference between those two is about 800 euro. Personally my wallet can’t justify the price difference versus the improvement of IQ between those two lenses. The Tamron has very good IQ performance.
I don’t think we will see a 24-70 f/2.8 IS of Canon soon. How will Canon position that lens? With what IQ performance against what price? That is within there own range of lenses (24-70 MKII, 24-70 f/4 and 24-105 IS) and comparing it to lenses of Tamron and Sigma.

privatebydesign said:

And what about lenses with rear gel holders like the 17-40, 16-35 MkI and MkII etc? Marks on the rear element are much more image impact inducing than marks on the front element.

Click to expand...

I'm not speaking about image degradation caused by marks or debris on internal surfaces. I'm talking about the loss of imaging resolution due to the fact that an optically flat piece of glass will alter the path of a light ray due to refraction at two air-glass interfaces that are separated by a non-negligible thickness. If a lens is designed to take this into account--as all lenses that are made with a drop-in filter slot are so designed--then the removal or modification of that piece of glass can have consequences on image quality. The impact on the central portion of the image is minimal, but for oblique rays hitting the periphery of the image circle, especially when the lens is shot wide open, the impact is more evident.

Any piece of glass of nontrivial thickness that you put between the lens and the sensor will cause some kind of refraction that is proportional to the thickness of that glass. A gel filter is about one order of magnitude thinner than a glass filter, and thus the refractive error is also similarly smaller.

brad-man said:

jrista said:

brad-man said:

Marsu42 said:

Don Haines said:

.... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.

Click to expand...

Here's an example of this from today, the sky was clipped, but after some brushing around in LR it doesn't matter since it was all grey anyway (well, bluish grey). I call the shot "Thinking of DR discussions" :->

Click to expand...

He may have been saying "goodbye Jon". It appears that jrista has left the building...

Click to expand...

Nope, not gone. Just extracting myself entirely from the debate...all debates. I honestly don't know what I'm debating for, it's done nothing for me, the response from this community has clearly indicated they don't want me involved. So, I'm not. I've got better things to do. (BTW, the only way to stop getting notified in the new replies list of your activity in threads is to delete yourself entirely from those threads (in case anyone was curious)...therefor, this post will be deleted at the end of the day.)

Click to expand...

I hope you reconsider removing yourself from all debates/discussions. You are one of the more knowledgeable and helpful participants on this forum and have much to offer. Just give the sensor argument a rest...at least until the 5DlV is released

Click to expand...

Don't worry, he is as prolific as ever.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=20664

And I agree, the place would be poorer without him.

Steve said:

These samples still don't seem very sharp to me. Even the low ISO shots seem a bit smeary. I gotta think its something to do with how the camera processes the jpgs. The NR looks good but everything seems just a touch OOF even when its obviously not.

dtaylor said:

ACR is able to extract more fine detail then DPP. When I've tested this I've actually been surprised at how much more. Conversely, I think its algorithm ends up emphasizing noise.

Click to expand...

I've never noticed a difference between DPP and ACR wrt detail but the noise difference is pretty obvious. When I switched to using DPP to convert, I could definitely use less NR and more detail extraction, sharpening, contrast, etc without going over the edge into that weird watercolor world. Photos I converted from DPP and processed in PS were definitely sharper and more detailed than ACR conversions processed similarly.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the observations. I'll need to look into processing this way.

I have the Canon 10-18, 35 2.0 IS and Sigma 50mm Art. I'd give up some of the UW area, but would it be wrong to consider swapping out my UWA zoom and 35mm for a 16-35 f4 IS? I'll be sticking with crop for awhile, but maybe not forever.
I like all three, but I also like simplicity and the Sigma 50 is a cut above.

lucuias said:

Canon 70D is the only touch screen DSLR from canon,if it is not touch screen,it is not Canon 70D.Maybe some China 70D

Click to expand...

The 100D/SL1 also has a touch screen but it's not articulated like the 70D

alistairm1 said:

There's a bricks and mortar store where the 7DII is £1599 and the 15-85 is £590 and an internet store has the 5DIII with 24-105L as a kit is £2149
I can afford one or the other, and for reasons of marital harmony I need a one-body solution.

Click to expand...

One thing to look out for, I'd assume that at that price for the 5d/24-105, it's a grey import. If you're happy going that route I reckon you'd be able to better the price for the 7D/15-85 online too, for example DigitalRev have the 15-85 for £419. no price for the 7D MKII yet.

barracuda said:

Hate to throw you another curve ball, but a refurbished version of an older version of the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM (Mfr# 136101 vs. the newer 137101) is available at Sigma's outlet store for $1999.

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/120-300mm-f28-ex-dg-os-apo-hsm-refurbished

I'm not familiar with the differences between the two lenses, so can't say how IQ compares.

Click to expand...

This deal appears to be over now? I am currently looking to purchase the older version of the sigma 120-300, but it appears the sigma outlet store no longer sells it.

Thanks Graham for the review!

I dont own the 6D and I am not sure that I will, but your review added a bit more of doubt when thinking about the next camera. So far, I am happy and my needs are fulfilled almost 100% of the times with a 5D mark II. Maybe in 6m.- 1 y. may be time to change. Or maybe not... I was 7 years with a 10D.. However, when my hands were on the 5D II I thought why didn't I change before... I think Either it will be 5D III or 6D + 7D mark II. I "unfortunately" am developing my skills in wildlife and is a field I really love and plan to shoot in the coming years.... so the 7D II seems a great camera for that too...

Anyway now I am redesigning my lens collection (selling my 24 1.4 II and 24-70 2.8 vI and buying the zoom vII) and possibly my cokin GND filters (to Lee). Did you start with the Cokin? Did you find any differences?

And really beautiful pictures you shot! I also shoot quite a lot of landscapes at f16 and above and was wondering about if there is someone else using these aperture! I have heard about the loss of sharpness at these high number apertures because of the diffraction. Any experiences on that? Any noticeable loss of quality? I know about it but really need those apertures many times for the purposes I want (as you, long exposures for example).

Anyway, keep on the good shots and thanks again for the review!

Victor

Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Khnnielsen said:

Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Well it's broadcast-approved because it is 4:2:2, and over 50mbps. The 1Dc has SO much more than the 7D mk II, it has a full frame 5D3-like mode, a 4K APS-H mode, a S35 mode that looks better than the C300(!), a Clean HDMI output in 4K mode that's even beter than the s35 crop, it has Canon Log, doesn't have the EU tax limitation of 29 minutes, and of course it has a 1DX built-in!

I just wish Canon would bring some of these down to lower-end models. Why not give the DSLRs C-log? Why doesn't the 7D mk II have a image similar to the s35 crop in the 1DC? Sony is giving S-log and F5/55 quality in their DSLRs, Canon should do the same with C-log and C300-quality. It doesn't hurt sales, current F5/55 owner are just buying A7s's as B-cams, it boosts sales!

Click to expand...

You are preaching to the choir.

Click to expand...

How? I am asserting that the 1DC has much more than other Canon DSLRs as a response to people who said it's just 4K resolution.

Click to expand...

Relax, I wasn't attacking the first part of your post. It was just a response to the last part of your post, where you are talking about how you wish, Canon would bring some its more advanced features to some of the lower-end models. I am fairly certain that many feel that way - both on the video and still side of things.

I just recently ordered the 400/5.6L and I would like to know if anyone here has used this lens in combo with 5D3 and how it works.

Thanks in advance