A Random Roadmap: Lenses & Bodies [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
skitron said:
It's looking like the 24-70mm II won't have IS. I didn't think it would even before seeing this (it's too short a focal length):
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,897.msg12095/topicseen.html#new
Upvote
0
A
autochrome
Guest
christopher said:
What happened to the f1.0? Was it really worth it? I had the pleasure of having a M6 and a 0.95 Noctilux loaned for a week some years ago and that's something that left me a good impression (i was using HP5+ and getting decent photos in literally candle light, today i'm not sure if there's much meaning to it, one can boost the ISO up and still have noise that pales in comparision to the grain of HP5+ on Microphen and resolution that surpasses everything from the film days, even with extreme measures such as Contax RTSIII's vacuum pressure plate to hold the emulsion perfectly flat, and this coupled with *T lenses). Anyone here had hands on experience on the Canon 50mm f1.0 and insights that want to share?
Upvote
0
autochrome said:
You should check fredmiranda.com. petcal has one, and is very good about answering questions about lenses. He is a very active poster, so he is checking every day. He loves his.
Upvote
0
J
John Smith
Guest
dilbert said:
IMHO, the lenses would still significantly differ, e.g.
* The f/1.2 has metal body with weather sealing, where the f/1.4 has plastic body with no weather sealing.
* The f/1.2 has 8 circular aperture blades, while the f/1.4 has 7 straight blades.
* The f/1.2 has an aspherical element, the f/1.4 has none.
Upvote
0
J
John Smith
Guest
Canon Rumors said:
I'm not familiar with the APS-H line, but I find this a little curious.
Switching to FF will make the owner's lenses a little short[er], while switching to APS-C will make them a little long[er]. A need to buy new lenses with a new body sounds like an opportunity to switch brand.
Upvote
0
John Smith said:
The difference is great enough to switch brands, not in my opinion. People move from 1.6 to 1.0 all the time and just add a new wide angle and they're good to go. Lenses that satisfy one function just plug another gap. You'll be buying a lot of the same lenses you already have. Besides, a 50mm going from 65mm back to 50 just means you take two steps forward. I don't see the issue being near as severe as the confusion from having three crop factors in one line. I'd much rather have a FF with crop options in-body. This should be standard, like choosing file quality. I'd also love to see selectable ratios with a custom function, so you could frame and shoot 2.35:1 images and see what they'll look like as if cropped in post-processing. These would be fun features to play with in the field. (Square and circular crops would be cool as well). If you don't like this stuff, don't use it.
Upvote
0
P
pgabor
Guest
John Smith said:
You know the sad thing is that even the new nikon 50 f1.8 has an aspherical element. And its 200$ not 1600$...
Canon screwed this when they released the new 50 f1.2, because its became the worst L prime in the lineup, its so weak that even the 1.4 can match it. So canon can't (and won't) upgrade the 1.4 until the 1.2 is not getting its refresh. And its not coming soon...
Upvote
0
HughHowey said:
Please forgive me if I am missing something obvious as I've never even considered this....but, other than file size on your CF card, how is this different from simply cropping a full frame image in post? ???
Upvote
0
John Smith said:
If Canon doesn't want to fall behind Nikon in high ISO department (quite reasonable desire for a sports camera) they have no choice but go bigger (no smaller sensor can compete with bigger one in high iso), otherwise iso-sensitive (also IQ sensitive) people switch brand too? Also, there are many eagerly waiting their lenses to act as they were designed for. Counting pros&cons might not always be straightforward.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
docsmith said:
There are two main reasons for the APS-H format. One is that it's substantially cheaper to produce than FF (APS-H is the largest size that can be imaged in one shot onto the silicon wafer during production, FF sensors require multiple passes). The second is that the smaller sensor size allows a faster frame rate - dual Digic IVs could not achieve 10 fps from a FF sensor. But, if an in-camera crop is applied, a smaller portion of the sensor could be used, allowing a faster frame rate. So a FF camera with a fast shutter could achieve higher frame rates that way, e.g. Nikon's D3 is 9 fps in FX mode (but that's only 12 MP, so a lot less data to manage than Canon's current 21 MP FF), but edges up to 11 fps in DX mode (1.5x crop).
Upvote
0
- Status
