Further clarification of what will be announced by Canon next month

[bergstrom]

It will likely go clear around the world, since its a streaming event.

damn, when my sarcasm backfired, oops. Good point.

 

[flip314]

Completely expected for non-L lenses: no hood, no pouch, no case included.

I never care about the cases, but Canon's pricing on lens hoods is becoming ridiculous. I just about choked when I saw that the ET-74B (70-300mm IS II USM) is a $45 piece of plastic. No felt flocking, no nothing.

I'm usually one to just fork out the little bit extra for OEM equipment, but that was one place I was much happier with the $14 3rd party substitute.

 

[koenkooi]

I never care about the cases, but Canon's pricing on lens hoods is becoming ridiculous. I just about choked when I saw that the ET-74B (70-300mm IS II USM) is a $45 piece of plastic. No felt flocking, no nothing.

I'm usually one to just fork out the little bit extra for OEM equipment, but that was one place I was much happier with the $14 3rd party substitute.

It's a bit more expensive here in .nl and the 3rd party equivalents aren't in stock anywhere. I got a good enough deal on an in-store display unit that I bought the Canon hood for that lens. It's crazy that the hood accounted for like 20% of the total order price.

And since I payed sum a stupidly large sum of money for it: don't talk bad about this superior lens hood!

 

[privatebydesign]

I never care about the cases, but Canon's pricing on lens hoods is becoming ridiculous. I just about choked when I saw that the ET-74B (70-300mm IS II USM) is a $45 piece of plastic. No felt flocking, no nothing.

I'm usually one to just fork out the little bit extra for OEM equipment, but that was one place I was much happier with the $14 3rd party substitute.

I paid $49.95 for the hood for my $300 EF35mm f2 IS. I think Canon know I am a hood kinda guy...

 

[Viggo]

I paid $49.95 for the hood for my $300 EF35mm f2 IS. I think Canon know I am a hood kinda guy...

Just a tip guys, don’t check the price of a 400 f2.8 hood

 

[privatebydesign]

Just a tip guys, don’t check the price of a 400 f2.8 hood

Nor the price for the trunk! I've actually got two old ones too...

 

[Michael Clark]

+++ Canon has never made wide angle or even normal lenses compatible with extenders.

uhm. Tilt and shift lenses inclusive?

Not officially. From the Canon USA info page for the EF 2X III:

"This lens is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses 135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS, EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L. Additionally, please see the lens and/or camera body manual for full compatibility information with the Extender EF 2X III."

Here's a link to the pdf manual for the version III extenders which list all compatible lenses at time of introduction. No TS-E lens nor the MPE-65mm are included on the list.

 

[Michael Clark]

I may stand corrected here. But I also find it hard to believe because it's not what I've been told by anyone from Canon and I can't find anything online to confirm it - only evidence that goes against it. When I had issues with the


I am very curious about this statement. The 1DX Mark II has Dual Digic 6+ processors and a single regular Digic 6 for metering and AF. The original 1DX had Dual Digic 5+ processors and a single Digic 4 for metering and AF. The 5D Mark IV uses a single Digic 6+ and a single Digic 6 for metering and AF. The 5D Mark III used a single Digic 5+ for everything. The Canon 7D Mark II has dual Digic 6 processors. This comes directly from Canon's press material.

So we know for a fact, they have different processing hardware inside - there are photos of their main boards online to support that as well. His comments made in 2012 appear to be incorrect because the original 1D had a total of 3 processors on board wearing the Digic name and the 5D Mark III only made use of a single Digic. I really have no idea why he would make these comments and contradict what Canon has stated as a company and what the physical hardware indicates.

Please reread Canon's press releases and marketing material very carefully. They don't always say exactly what some people think they see when they read them.

I've read a comment he made elsewhere that I couldn't find when I wrote the above that said the AF chip used with the 5D Mark IV and 1D X Mark II that had DiG!C 6+ main processing chip(s) used a chip that was approximately equivalent to a DiG!C 5 chip, but was not an actual DiGiC 5 chip proper. A lot of folks will read marketing materials that say something like "... uses a dedicated AF processing chip that has the same power as DiG!C 5..." and then endlessly repeat "It has a DiG!C 5 AF processor" on the internet until everyone believes it as fact.

Just like when Canon says a product includes "weather sealing components" and then everyone (except Canon) claims the camera is "weather sealed."

 

[Michael Clark]

But you said (my emphasis) "The whole point of an ND filter is to protect the highlights." No it isn't. It's to allow you to use a larger aperture (as in your example above, which I had already given), or a slower shutter speed (for creative reasons) than you would otherwise be able to. That's not "protecting the highlights", which is something you achieve by ensuring you don't expose too far to the right - more often than not without using an ND filter. In the most extreme cases - my f/1.4 lenses wide open in bright sunlight - an ND filter might be the only way to do this, but this is an edge case and in no way "the whole point of" an ND filter.


Yes, video typically uses slower shutter speeds than stills so an ND filter is a useful tool - but once again this is not "to protect highlights", it's to allow a suitable exposure of all tones at the required shutter speed..

In general, when one wants to protect the highlights, one decreases exposure. Saying that something is for "decreasing exposure" but not for "protecting highlights" is like saying drinking cold water is for cooling one's body, but not for preventing one's body to overheat.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yes, if you pull the LCD out then you have the same issue either way.
But if your LCD is stowed into the body (either front or back facing) then it is (IMHO) more comfortable to have the EVF on the left.

I'm curious: Why would you think you have to use a 16:9 LCD or make the camera bigger?
And why would you care if the flash is mounted on the left of the camera as opposed to the middle? It'd still be in the same position relative to your head either way.

When properly supporting the weight of the camera and lens by the left hand cupped under the lens, moving the VF to the left edge would move the lens to the right by the same amount, as well as move the right side of the camera and the right hand holding it out by the same distance. So now the centerline of the lens would not be aligned with the center of the photographer's face and (usually) body. We'd be holding the camera halfway to in front of our right shoulder. This would make keeping both elbows in close a lot more difficult for many photographers.

 

[Michael Clark]

To add to the confusion, BMW owns Rolls-Royce, and VW owns Bentley. The history is more complicated.

As far back as i can remember, Rolls owned Bentley. When did they divest it?

 

[Michael Clark]

WTF? Where are the 50 and 85 lenses? If they aren't announced and released by Oct, Im switching back to Sony. Its ridiculous its taking this long to release affordable RF primes.

See 'ya!

 

[navastronia]

If Canon is going to surprise us by disabling/not including a feature (thus, living up to its reputation -- if you want to supply the pejorative we all know, now's the time), my money is on the R6 not taking a battery grip. With a grip, it would be too powerful, and might dissuade users from purchasing the eventual R1, or even in some cases, the 1DX Mk. III, a camera that costs nearly 3 times as much as this likely will.

 

[stevelee]

As far back as i can remember, Rolls owned Bentley. When did they divest it?

It got complicated. In 1998 VW bought the company, but BMW wound up owning the name and design. BMW started making Rolls in 2003 (having supplied engines for years). The company under VW continues to make Bentleys. That’s the quick version.

 

[usern4cr]

When properly supporting the weight of the camera and lens by the left hand cupped under the lens, moving the VF to the left edge would move the lens to the right by the same amount, as well as move the right side of the camera and the right hand holding it out by the same distance. So now the centerline of the lens would not be aligned with the center of the photographer's face and (usually) body. We'd be holding the camera halfway to in front of our right shoulder. This would make keeping both elbows in close a lot more difficult for many photographers.

"A lot more difficult?" 1 to 1.5 inches to the right? OK, I guess that settles it - You wouldn't like it, period - that's fine. However, I don't like having my nose hitting the camera and would welcome the EVF on the left so I could comfortably face forward with my left eye open to see the overall scene and my right eye comfortably on the EVF. I think I could manage holding the camera 1 to 1.5 inches further right just fine.

Different strokes for different folks. But it looks like inertia wins this battle and things will stay the way they were back when it had to be that way. I'll just have to adapt as I've always had to. There are a lot more important camera issues that this, so I'm not going to sweat it.

 

[Michael Clark]

It got complicated. In 1998 VW bought the company, but BMW wound up owning the name and design. BMW started making Rolls in 2003 (having supplied engines for years). The company under VW continues to make Bentleys. That’s the quick version.

Yeah, it seems BMW got the name and some trademarks/iconic aesthetic design shapes but Bentley got to keep the overall designs (other than the RR logo, grill, and hood ornament shapes) of both the existing RR and Bentley products at the time of the transactions. The BMW RR models are new designs, while the Bentleys made since the split are based on previous model evolution from both the RR & Bentley model lines.

 

[Michael Clark]

"A lot more difficult?" 1 to 1.5 inches to the right? OK, I guess that settles it - You wouldn't like it, period - that's fine. However, I don't like having my nose hitting the camera and would welcome the EVF on the left so I could comfortably face forward with my left eye open to see the overall scene and my right eye comfortably on the EVF. I think I could manage holding the camera 1 to 1.5 inches further right just fine.

Different strokes for different folks. But it looks like inertia wins this battle and things will stay the way they were back when it had to be that way. I'll just have to adapt as I've always had to. There are a lot more important camera issues that this, so I'm not going to sweat it.

OK, so "a bit more difficult". An inch or two may not seem like much, but for us old dogs that have been shooting SLRs for several decades, we don't like it when someone makes us change our entire shooting stance.

 

[stevelee]

Yeah, it seems BMW got the name and some trademarks/iconic aesthetic design shapes but Bentley got to keep the overall designs (other than the RR logo, grill, and hood ornament shapes) of both the existing RR and Bentley products at the time of the transactions. The BMW RR models are new designs, while the Bentleys made since the split are based on previous model evolution from both the RR & Bentley model lines.

I bought an Audi A4 in December. So maybe I have a poor man's Bentley or a rich man's VW. Either way, I really like it and wish there was somewhere to go. A guy on line said it feels like he is 16 again: gas is cheap, and he is grounded.

Around 1300 miles the car said it needed an oil change. I knew that was unlikely, but I called the service department, and they agreed, but said they'd check it out, and at least reset the service interval messages. They brought me an A6 with even more bells and whistles and just 300 miles on it. I had it overnight and just went as far as the grocery store. I did get admiring comments in the parking lot. I didn't take time to figure out all the features, but I did turn on the adaptive cruise control to drive through town. When I turned off the street with a 25mph limit on to one with a 35mph limit, the cruise control reset itself accordingly.

This is vaguely on topic, because the new car is one of many reasons for me not to buy a new 5D IV.

 

[bbb34]

We are done with the R5.

Now it's time for 5D5 and M5.2 rumors!