coated less reflections and flare.... the strength is how many stops of light it will remove....

A friend of mine have helped me with the test of my new G1 X,
http://rust.se/canon-powershot-g1x/

Try using the diopter adjustment, it could be off.

I've got a 60D, and Canon says that it'll take (at least) 100.000 shutter cycles. The 7D does 150.000. Now it is well known that Canon went out of their way to make the 60D somewhat crippled to still be able to sell their 7D, and I was always wondering about this:

* Is the shutter system of the eos bodies really that different, or is it basically the same thing with some features blocked (like 1/8000s) and different warranties to scare people into buying more expensive bodies?

* What's your experience - at what count did one of your older bodies' shutter ever break down compared to its max. cycles under warranty? Did you get it repaired, and if yes at what cost?

awinphoto said:

JonJT said:

but.... but.... ?

Haha, I know. Well, I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too.

Click to expand...

I tell ya I did my best to forewarn her how expensive camera gear is and being with a photographer can take it's toll... I dont think she fully understood until well after the nuptials ahaha. Oh well it's worth it in the end, or at least when i'm not trying to buy more gear haha.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, my parents have joint expenses but, their toys, and the associated expenses, are their own.

Thanks for the words though, I'm going to keep them in mind for the future.

They also said 70-300 IS at 300 f/5.6 is better than 70-300 L and 300 f/4 IS L !?!?!
And that 70-200 2.8 IS at 200mm 2.8 is better than the 70-200 2.8 non-IS is better than the 70-200 2.8 IS II!?!
And that the 16-35 II has better corner performance at f/2.8 than at f/5.6!?!!!

And now having the 300 2.8 IS II losing to the 300 f/4 IS?!????

Seriously, their lens tests are wack. For sensors they do some good work, but for lenses, whoa.

With respect, Mt Spokane, I stand by my position. There are phones coming out this quarter based on nVidia's Tegra3 quad-core chip. If there's room in a phone for that, then there's certainly room for similar power in a camera.

ESPECIALLY in the larger SLR's that have multiple CPU's and card slots.

I'm passionate about this because I split time between photo and video and can't afford two separate cameras. I totally get the old school mentality that scorns the use of an SLR for video. But it's a new world...and none of our kids are going to make those kinds of distinctions...

:O

most people suffer from stockholm syndrom with their camera company...which is pathetic.

I look at what they have for me. I couldn't care less for canon's telephoto line. I couldn't care less for most of their lens lineup either. But they have what I need. So does nikon too, but I just happen to land here. I'd switch if I think I would benefit. I'm loyal to no company because no company is loyal to me.

AnthonyWithNoH said:

Seems to me a large percent of the rumors (even the official ones) are often off. These new 5D ones that are arising seem very plausible though... thoughts? Have you all been disappointed often with rumors here?

Click to expand...

I think the owner right most of the time but often gets everybody excited by wishlists of fans. To his credit, too many people belive rumors as gospel. Yet I can't recall how many times he's said that given year would see a surge on lenses only to be an average year. This year he said the same and I'm hoping he is right

still, the site is helpful and a really tough job I couldn't do better.

moreorless said:

Added to that are large appature AF zooms ever going to be compact enough to balance a mirrorless system? without them your dealing with a very different market, one that only currently exists in the very small/prenium M9.

Not saying such a market doesnt potentially exist but its clearly much more risky than mirrorless ASPC

Click to expand...

" Large aperture", "Zoom" "Compact", "AF" are mutually exclusive. It is just physically impossible to make it even for APS-C, let alone FF.
M9 is not very small 5.5" in length while the T3i is 5.2" in length.
There is actually an optional grip available for M9, that will make the size even larger.

better to wait for a good one than having a 'bad premature' camera out!

Tijn said:

neuroanatomist said:

That's why many people (me included) use back-button AF, where a shutter half-press activates metering only, and you press teh AF-ON button to AF.

Click to expand...

I've seen that option. Was looking for the opposite, something to stop the AF while in AI servo mode to change the framing without losing focus. I did find that...

I guess that if you use back-button AF instead, you can just stop it servo-focussing by releasing the button? Personally I've not tried it yet, but I did find that back button a bit fiddly to find (for AF stop) for something as important as focussing.

And you're correct, it might have been the 85L. But it was either that or the 135L, it was an 'odd number'. But it was an f/2 prime for sure. The person who had it didn't know much about it either (she had just got her new body for a week and borrowed the lens from a friend or something).

Thanks for yet another explanation.

Click to expand...

I use the AF-ON button to stop my AF, which it sounds like you've tried? I'm used to the shutter button metering and auto focusing, so whenever I want to manual focus, or lock focus for a series of pictures, I hold the AF-ON (made to be AF-OFF with a custom function) until I want to use auto focus again. I will switch the lens to manual focus if I want to keep it locked for more than a few pictures.

Nostrada said:

moreorless said:

LetTheRightLensIn said:

dilbert said:

I'm hoping for 20-somethinig MP ... the Nikon camp is currently in a dither because Nikon is saying that need to use it with a tripod nearly all the time! lolz

Click to expand...

And what of the 7D? 60d? 50d? Nobody ever uses them hand-held? Hah, they all have higher photosite density than the D800!

Click to expand...

Shutter speeds are going to be lower on a D800 at similar ISO's and similar DOF's to crop bodies though arent they?

Click to expand...

One other thing: the DOF on a crop body, even at the same f-stop, will be greater than on a FF body, so I would assume this helps minimise the effects of high photosite density and make the image appear sharper, simply because more of it is in focus.

Click to expand...

Only if the field of view is identical. If taken from the same spot with the same setup (and therefore a different field of view), then the full frame actually has greater DoF.

macfly said:

Well since I'll be getting one in the first batch I'll do some direct side by side comparisons with my 1Ds Mklll and can post them here if you're interested, but of course the glass will be a variable too, not just the sensor. Anyhow I need to do it to for myself to know what I'm dealing with, so happy to share.

Click to expand...

When doing the comparison, would you mind to downscale the D800 to the same size of the 1DsIII, so that the comparison will be a realistic one representing the same print size. Thanks.

Chuck Alaimo said:

I am genuinely happy with my 7d, but have gotten to the point where I am just sick of having to have the 10-22 to cover the wide end, when my 24-70 would be wide enough for most of the work that I'm doing. In fact, I like like my 7d enough that if i can swing it financially, I plan to keep the 7d for the rare occurance i need the reach a 1.6 crop can provide, and for lower paying gigs at places i wouldn't feel comfortable bringing my FF into.

Click to expand...

well, pro or non pro then ... you just confirm my point that Canon is making it financially very challenging to move from APS-C to FF ... forcing all but their better-heeled user base to sell off all their APS-C gear ... EF-S lenses plus body! ... in order to finance an FF body and at the same time, immediately also some EF glass.

Chuck Alaimo said:

The only one that i can see the worth in desiring on an FF body is the 17-55. Even the 10-22, which i own, and is a fun lens, I wouldn't want that on a FF body. The IQ just isn't good enough.

Click to expand...

Your 10-22 may be a sub-par copy. I had bought my first10-22 used and it had a decentering issue showing as softness on the right bottom part of images. I sold and bought a new one, which is absolutely fine. From all the tests and picures I see, I do not believe that the 16-35 II pulls off comparatively better IQ on an FF body.

Chuck Alaimo said:

So, to a large extent, I feel that the ef/ef-s argument is really one of those is the cup half full or half empty arguments. Yeah, you could see it as a big ol road block. Or, you could see it the other way, as an opportunity to invest in better glass...

Click to expand...

Only problem with that: the lenses we want are not better in EF mount or with a red "L" ring than their EF-S counterparts, they just have a larger image circle and cost a lot more! 16-35 II expensive but IQ-wise no match at all for the Nikon 14-24 ... 24-70 I ... more expensive than 17-55 but slightly less IQ throughout overlapping focal range and no IS (not even on the II). Same for the 17-40 - optically not as good as the 10-22, just a bit of weather-sealing.

If it's true or not, we "normal" customers have to wait until our brand new camera is a frikkin' year old before we can buy it, awesome...

Looks like the 5d is staying for a while, not too unhappy with it though, it. is. awesome IQ at least. I've been using my 17 TS and Zeiss 28mm a bit more lately, and with the Eg-S screen, I get more images in focus with MF than my other lenses with AF, lol. Not quite sure what to think of that....

wickidwombat said:

Hillsilly said:

Next Christmas, when Santa's little helpers are taking pictures of Santa and children, I can almost guarantee that they'll be using a t3i. Elves know when they're onto a good thing. And it also seems to be the current camera of choice for smart professionals. Best combination of features, image quality and price.

Click to expand...

its definately got bang for buck covered not sure i would be brave enough to shoot a wedding with it though...

Click to expand...

I've done a lot with my 40D and would still be happy using that - best bangs for your buck at the moment is betwen the 40D and the 5D classic

NotABunny said:

The reason why the entire image from 5D2 looks cleaner is because it has a sensor that is 1.6 * 1.6 (= the crop factor) times larger than that of 7D. This is 2.56 times, meaning that it's log2( 2.56 ) = 1.35 stops cleaner. This is the expected difference.

This happens because images have a physical size, and this size is the size of the sensor. The larger sensor captures more light for the same photo. This can't be seen practically because the images are always scaled to display / paper size (= the same physical size), but with different scales. The images made by a sensor as large as a display don't need to be scaled at all (compared to a small FF sensor) and would therefore show stupefyingly low noise levels (for the entire photo). Unfortunately, the lens needs to be proportional in diameter.

Click to expand...

Just curious, but what is the tradeoff between size of the photosites versus low light performance? If I understand the thesis correctly, a higher density wouldn't hurt in uncropped situations but would help for cropping situations, but how about in extremely low light situations. How does the noise floor for larger photosites compare to smaller photosites? Signal strength could be thought to be proportional to area (L^2), but how about noise? Is it something less than than L^2? If it is, then there is a trade between resolution and low light performance.

unfocused said:

Interesting post on that "other brand" rumors site. They have a price list that shows the new Nikon D800 cost to dealers at $2,699.96 U.S. and the MSRP at $2,999.95.

I would expect the 5DIII to sell for essentially the same price as the D800. If Canon offers similar pricing margins for their dealers, I wouldn't expect to see much of a discount.

Click to expand...

Canon typically is able to undercut nikon prices by a couple of hundred dollars due to their lower cost of production. The 5D MK II came in at $200 under the D700, the 60D came in at less than the D7000, the 7D sold for less than the D300S.

The only time I've seen a suggestion that turns this around is Canons estimated price of $6800 for the D1X versus $6000 for the Nikon D4 The actual price is not yet set, so we have to wait. I asked my local dealer 5 days ago, and he only hinted that prices will be competitive and that orders were placed for both models a week before.

I have been with Canon for over 12 years. 100% Canon for over a decade. That being said, we are at the cross roads where dumping all of our Canon dslr gear. It would not mean much "loss" anyway since L can be sold easily and bodies are worn out anyway.

Of course, we have not pulled the trigger yet... awaiting what 1Dx and 5Dx/III have in store. We already know what Nikon has with high mpx D800 and high ido D4. Nothing is secret in Nikon's camp... high resolution outputs from D800 shows incredible detail and there are bunch of high ISO D4 files showing equal/better D3s performance! So, for us, Nikon is looking very good.

1Dx and 5Dwhatever are nowhere to be seen. Specs are everywhere! 1Dx is supposed to have incredible performance, but where are some high ISO samples?

In a nutshell, here are some points where Canon is getting beat pretty badly:

1. Dynamic Range: Both Nikon and Sony have eaten Canon alive in this. No comparison.
2. High ISO: Nikon is ahead... 1Dx was supposed to be promising, but where is the proof?
3. AF: Nikon AF is much better and much spread out to all of its pro and semi-pro models. Canon? Cripple everything.
4. Mpx: This is where Canon had advantage... not anymore!
5. Video: Again, Canon used to be the King, but with Clean Video... audio monitoring... Nikon is way ahead. I really doubt Canon would cannibalize its video division by giving these features in their dslrs.

Now please tell me why should sane people not "jump ship" to a BETTER system?

For me, a heavy lens can lead to fatigue and a less steady hand. Of course, a longer lens is more prone to show the effects of shake, and they tend to be heavier.

JTPAIN said:

Sorry to post a question within another post - i hope the OP doesn't mind?

Wouldn't a fairer comparison be

17-40L vs. 17-55 IS

Between these two - which would 'win'?

Click to expand...

The 17-55mm, except for build quality.

If I didn't need the 2.8 of the 70-200, I would have purchased the 70-300L.

I tested it at a store once and was amazed at how sharp and fast the AF was. I will say that the swapping of the focus ring and zoom ring will take a little time to get used to. I really liked the compact size of the 70-300L as well.

I hope to pick up a copy in the future. I would much rather take it on travels than the heavy 70-200.

Yes Please. This perhaps will be even more relevant next Tuesday if Canon does infact announce a new camera. For some time, we've discussed the possibility of not only a 580 mk2 replacement but the Canon line leaving their current optical way of speedlight communication and using true radio communication. If they announce a new camera and a new speedlight it certainly would be good to know that new direction. However if they announce another daylight limited camera, then that will place the emphasis on radio type transmitters and receivers.

is DxO the best software for removing noise or is lightroom nearly as good?