Search results

This has been a deeply confusing set of rumors (not blaming you, CR Guy) and I really am looking forward to solid info at this point, about all of this.

I would enjoy having one of these, tbh. If it were less than $100 and worked well -- without privacy issues caused by being monitored -- I would get one.

From an arstechnica article in 2010 on the launch of Office 2010: Microsoft has revealed prices for the various Office 2010 SKUs that it announced back in July 2009. The company also confirmed the existence of the Office Professional Academic 2010 edition, which we first got word of last month...

Your correction doesn't impact my argument in the slightest.

Subscribing to software at a low price must seem like a fair deal when you've already given up on the idea of ownership, which was the norm less than 10 years ago.

I will never subscribe to a camera. Capitalism, in its demand for ever increasing profits, squeezes consumers when production can't get any cheaper. Shrinkflation, collecting and selling user data, and subscription models for goods are all symptoms of the hell we've created and are living in.

Oh boy, the timing on this . . . I was planning to buy new gear in the next 6 months. Hmm.

Why type this comment without reading the write-up? Did you not notice CR says that Canon is developing this in such a way as the shaking mechanism is isolated from the rest of the camera using silicone, etc? And if you don't think there will be a menu option to turn off the setting, I've got a...

Objectively, not much - it's fast, it's not expensive, it's sharp. But I'm not feeling inspired by primes of late, and moving up on L zooms is probably the move for flexibility, reliability, and weather sealing.

Yeah, I own the EF Sigma 35/1.4 Art and find that I don't love using it anymore, even for weddings. The honeymoon is over, so to speak. Next year, I want to upgrade to the RF 15-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, then throw one of those on each body (R6) and be good to go for the whole wedding day.

Yep, that all makes sense. And for me, the image quality (being approximately the same as the EF version) of the RF version isn't the selling point - the weight reduction is. I have twice owned the EF 70-200/2.8 and twice sold it - just too heavy and awkward for my shooting style.

Indeed. I'm a wedding photographer and I've never liked the EF 70-200/2.8. The RF version is a whole different story.

a 70-150/2 would indeed be the ideal portrait lens. For my work, a 14-28/2 would be more useful, but alas, can't have everything!

"Don't knock it 'til you try it," as they say, but I don't imagine I would enjoy this even for video work (the intended use case).

This is about to be the most hater thing I\'ve ever posted on this website, but . . . Is it just me, or is the 24-105/2.8 just a touch ugly looking? Like, what is going on with the wide spacing of the marks on the focus ring? It looks like the EF 200/2.8 L II, released in 1996.

I started shooting weddings this year, and as much as I like my primes, for weddings, they're a PITA. I hope to shoot with a 15-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 next year and let those cover everything, one on each body.

If they did a 14-28/2 (or even a 24-35/2, similar to the one Sigma made for EF mount, years ago), and it was light enough, I would get it.

I'm hoping for some crazy zooms to join the RF 28-70/2. It's been 5 years since that lens debuted.

It bores me. I enjoy shooting ultra-wide up to ~35mm and tele starting around 85mm. My next kit will be a 15-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 because it gets me all the useful focal lengths for my wedding/event/portrait photography and none of those I dislike. That being said, I do shoot at 40mm and 50mm...

As someone who loathes the 24-70, this is why the 28-70 never strongly appealed to me, either. I dislike shooting between 40 and 75mm.