That memo is an attempt at humor, but the premise is just stupid. Canon has nothing to fear. They can continue to push inferior tech (relative to the competition) and people buy them gladly or are stuck with them, thus making Canon enough money from sales revenue and profit to be the giant. Reminds me of Microsoft.

The big question is going to be whether Panasonic's sensors can keep up with the competition. In the mirrorless world, the competition are Sony and Fuji (Olympus have started using Sony sensors)

As someone who's just got a 5mk3 in addition to my 7, I have to agree with the other guys...They complement each other really well.
I'm now doing portrait sessions with 70-200 2.8ISII on the 5d3, and an aging 20-35 2.8L (non USM forebear of the 16-35) on the 7D. (50 1.4 in a pocket for if really shallow dof is called for).

I'd be tempted to sell the 10-22 and go for a UWA that works on the 5, - if you're new to Full Frame, the IQ difference is staggering. 24L may be an option for you, not quite so wide as either of the zooms....but it gives you another shallow dof option.

EvilTed said:

1) The Fuji is more Leica-esque. It's light, small unobtrusive and can give IQ to rival an M9.
2) There's nothing "better" about the Canon IQ, even though the system is FF and significantly more expensive.

Click to expand...

Can we see your photos? For me the difference between camera bodies is so huge, that I can easily throw away photos from one camera when using different bodies during a shoot ???

RLPhoto said:

Who use's a light meter anymore? I certainly don't and most pro I know don't either. I could see it if you are shooting MF film or Large Format Film for landscapes but 35MM for portraits? Nah, learn the RGB histogram and be freed.

Click to expand...

I bought my first light meter a couple of weeks ago, and I love it. But I do still shoot film fairly regularly... Besides that, I like being able to get accurate exposures off-the-bat, rather than having to use trial and error. YMMV.

Based on the worlds fastest growing thread I thought this question would get lost in the 26 pages......

1/4000sec shutter speed I saw some complain that its not nearly fast enough.

I currently own a 450D and that is my max and I can't even think of the times I've gotten that high. Is it really a major draw back?

I thought I saw 1/180 for max flash shutter speed or something like that... thats only for a flash that does not feature high speed sync correct? My 450D is 1/200 max for a slow flash.

Third and final question.... F2.8 Center point how does that compare to other EOS models? Most zoom L glass is only 2.8 fast anyway so is that so bad? and if you use a faster lens it just cant guarantee the accuracy of the focus? Dont really care how many points as I don't do much sports and always use center point.

Thanks for the feed back, I've been shooting for a few years but still obviously have lots to learn from a technical aspect. And would like a camera that will allow me room to grow. I do currently 60% portrait type shots of kids, family 20% landscape although that use to be 90% and 20% weddings as a second shooter for a buddy.

The cost of designing packaging and maintaining inventory of a body only just to sell 50 or so would be a big loss for a manufacturer. This might not be the case in some countries with a high markup and huge profit.
I'd get one with lens, if only for the eventual day I sold it. Of course, I'd not use a EF lens as a primary lens, just in cases where a native lens was not yet available.
The Camera with adapter and FF lens mounted will be the same thickness as a Rebel DSLR, but akward to hold and use. It is a compromise, very slow autofocus, particularly with EF lenses.

Re: Pro Landscape Photography

Nitroman said:

Hi !

I'm a professional and have been for twenty years. My website is here so you can see what I'm talking about www.rodedwards.co.uk...Best of luck and just enjoy taking great pics ...

Click to expand...

Whenever I get fed up with this site, someone like Rod takes the time to post a well-thought-out and constructive reply. Your experience and perspective are reflective of much of what I experienced as a photojournalist thirty-some years ago. Professional photography is a tough way to earn a living, no matter which way you slice it. Talent is important, but talent alone won't cut it.

I have a filmmaker friend who, when someone asks him about going into filmmaking, his standard response is: do yourself a favor and study accounting instead.

I was fortunate, because I had other skills that allowed me to earn a decent living and support my family. Now, as I near retirement age, I can spend more time concentrating on photography for the love of the craft without having to worry about how to make it pay.

mrjinxx said:

Some great shots there - what lens do you use primarily?

Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm still learning the camera quite a bit too. My typical lenses I've used for outdoor sports are 300mm f/2.8L I IS, 400mm f/2.8L I IS, and the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS. That's honestly all I've used. Indoor will be different of course. The 300 seems to be a bit sharper than the 400.

TeenTog said:

I agree with papa razzi. You should definatley sell the 35 and get the 24-70 II, but it may be necessary to get the 50mm f/1.4 or even the f/1.8 for those low light wedding situaitions when you absolutley need the f/1.4. However,the 5D III and its lowlight capabilities may be perfect with the f/2.8......... you just need to decide what you need.

Click to expand...

Really? I guess it's just me but I find the 50 1.8 to be a good lens for the price but trying to use that as alternative to the 35 1.4 is a bit crazy in my head. Take a look at some charts and you'll immediately see these lenses, or for that matter any of Canon's 50mm lenses, are no where near what you can get with the 35 1.4. Not only is it sharper but I wouldn't trust just having the 50 1.8 as my low light lens for a wedding. Perhaps something else that it doesn't matter if you miss focus but a wedding. People pay good money for a reason, they expect you to be able to get the shot.

Now regarding whether to get the zoom or not, everybody so far seems to have only good things to say about it. Here's my thought though. Unless you really NEED the lens right now you're much better off waiting. The 5D mark iii launched only like six months ago at $3500. I just saw it the other day from Adorama for $2750. With these products, I think Canon realizes there is a pent up demand and that people are willing to pay the high prices to be first to get it. If you're willing to wait, at the very least they'll be having rebates on it and most likely a combination of that and a slight reduction in price could easily save $200-$400. That's just my thought. One alternative that would be much cheaper is to keep the 35 and get a 24-105 instead. Sure it's not quite as sharp but if you look at Roger's numbers from the comments section of his post on the new lenses resolution you'll see it's not that bad (835 / 820). This would give IS as the wide end which is great for a shots of the venue or anything else that's not moving. Plus add more reach at the long end. This lens has been out for a while so you're paying the premium that users of the new lens are. Sure it might not give you euphoric high of getting to play with the latest and greatest, but I think it would serve you well. I routinely see it for $800 and that's about what it's going for used as well so if you find you don't like it after 6 months to a year, then sell it and perhaps the 35 and go buy the 24 70. Chances are you'll have a better idea of what you're looking for as well after you've had a chance to try image stabilization on the wide end.

[CORRECTION]
WHOOPS just looked at your signature. You already have the 24 105. My bad. In that case my same logic remains of waiting. But of course it's your money and your equipment.

emko said:

people are saying because they released a firmware update for the 7d that its not likely they will release a mark II anytime soon, but i hope they are wrong because i want a better crop body then my 550d but i don't really like the idea of upgrading and having the same sensor quality.

Click to expand...

probably, people are not wrong... : I think Canon is now focusing to counter the D600...

I like to disable focus from the shutter button and only use the AF-on button in the back, this should easily solve your problem.

This video was made during a training use of paraglading.

AmbientLight said:

Thank you. This comparison pretty much hits the nail on its head. It seems I shall pick up this 24-70mm Mark II at some time.

Click to expand...

Check out my outdoors test... UNBELIEVABLE!
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9420.0

All taken on the River Thames this afternoon:


2Y2A0895.jpg by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: 5DMkiii, 70-300DO at 300mm, 1/1250 sec, f11.0, 800 ISO


2Y2A0888.jpg by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: 5DMkiii, 70-300DO at 300mm, 1/1250, f7.1, 800 ISO


2Y2A0922.jpg by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: As above except f10.0


2Y2A0918.jpg by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: As above

Egyptian goose:


2Y2A0814.jpg by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: As above except 275mm, f16.0

Swans:


2Y2A0944.jpg by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: As above except 185mm, f11.0


2Y2A0954.jpg by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: As above except 110mm, f10.0

Richard

thank you very much

I would like to show this place as a place to remember about of history. Of course, remember and I would like to encourage to see in real this place. However, it isn't advertisement

Honestly, I don't think you'll see much difference. The 17-40 I had wasn't anything to brag about. If you have a 5DIII, I would certainly pair it with some top notch glass. Keep your 7D combo for now and save money for something better.

I do a lot of low light photography with a f/2-f/1.4 aperture. Fortunately, I photograph at theatre rehersals and I can walk all over the theatre, even up on stage if I really need to.
There is no question that moving around changes the perspective, but then, that's what I want.
I could, of course, just sit in the middle of the theatre with a f/2.8 zoom and ISO 25800 and get a lot of noisy images, all with the same perspective. As it is, ISO 6400 ot 12800 is still sometimes required.

Impressive. Thanks for sharing.

Yes, carrying a huge camera certainly is a bear...but in the end, I always think it is worth it once you see the finished product.

The extra 1 FPS is a point for Nikon.

The D600 also has a 25,600 ISO (Hi-2) - http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25488/D600.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs = draw

So I think they are still in a dead heat, but the Canon info is still rumor. We'll see where the prices, specs and reviews are in December or later.

If you are in low light, a f/1.4 lens on a crop camera is cheaper than a 1D X with a f/2.8 which you would give you about about the same light sensitivity.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

The 7D seems to love a 100mm Macro, particularly my 100mm L. I like the combo better than with my FF body.

Click to expand...

Could 7D's 1.6 crop factor make something with that?

At least one has made it to the UK. I'm expecting to pick mine up on Monday but its in the shop right now.