Announcement Soon [CR3]

[ecka]

It is about time for a new Rebel (650D) . Perhaps this is what is going to be announced on 28th.

LOL, that would be funny, EOS 650D on the 25th anniversary of the EOS 650.

Yes, and it will be Canon's 75th anniversary as well (EOS 650 was on it's 50th, according to wikipedia ). This is why I'm expecting something special at the end of this month or at least in March.

 

[simonxu11]

It is about time for a new Rebel (650D) . Perhaps this is what is going to be announced on 28th.

LOL, that would be funny, EOS 650D on the 25th anniversary of the EOS 650.

Yes, and it will be Canon's 75th anniversary as well (EOS 650 was on it's 50th, according to wikipedia ). This is why I'm expecting something special at the end of this month or at least in March.

EOS 650 was on it's 25th anniversary on 17th of Feb 2012!!
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/20years.do

So it's already passed and nothing happened

 

[Stu_bert]

Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you. I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?

If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

 

[JoeBoe19]

why can't it be the 28th already?!?!?!?!?

 

[Picsfor]

Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you. I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?

If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

+1 - well said that chap. Mauritius and the Maldives are places i will never see again - nor the World Trade center in New York. I will never see a Space Shuttle take lift off nor Concorde in all its glory.
I will never see a child of mine born again, and never get the chance to watch them grow up and witness the dissolving of the innocence as they do.

My pictures portray my life in so many way. So i might as well have the best kit i can afford to record it all.

The 5D2 was the first camera to stop me wanting to go back to Canon A1's with add on grip. Nikon have never really got my attention, even though i may have occasionally 'threatened' to jump ship out of frustration.

 

[cfargo]

Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you. I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?

If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

Plus the fact that with Nikon's decision to make you send your camera in to one of a small handfull of service centers to get somthing as simple as a battery cover replaced, I wouldn't use Nikon if they were giving them away. Support the company that supports you and your right to get is serviced where you want, Buy Canon!!!

 

[ecka]

Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you. I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?

If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

You can always put that precious Nikon 14-24 lens on any Canon DSLR, just google for Nikon G to EOS adapter. Manual focusing isn't such a pain for an UWA lens .

 

[Stu_bert]

Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you. I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?

If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

You can always put that precious Nikon 14-24 lens on any Canon DSLR, just google for Nikon G to EOS adapter. Manual focusing isn't such a pain for an UWA lens .

Yup the 16:9 site.... it is tempting, but I'm watching to see a) if the concerns about it on the D800 are true, and b) what Canon does or is rumoured to do having announced a patent iirc. But by the end of the year, if there's no bad news on the Nikon and no positive news from Canon, then adapter +Nikon is fine. The only time I don't use liveview & manual focus is when it's too dark for liveview to work reliably

 

[Stu_bert]

Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you. I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?

If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

+1 - well said that chap. Mauritius and the Maldives are places i will never see again - nor the World Trade center in New York. I will never see a Space Shuttle take lift off nor Concorde in all its glory.
I will never see a child of mine born again, and never get the chance to watch them grow up and witness the dissolving of the innocence as they do.

My pictures portray my life in so many way. So i might as well have the best kit i can afford to record it all.

The 5D2 was the first camera to stop me wanting to go back to Canon A1's with add on grip. Nikon have never really got my attention, even though i may have occasionally 'threatened' to jump ship out of frustration.

You've already seen things that are now part of our history (WTC & Shuttle), so I definitely envy that you were able to capture those events, and as you say, capturing your life's experience, for you and for future generations is just priceless IMHO...

Mauritius & Maldives - bet you have some great stuff from there.

Alas out of your list, I've only done Concord, and on slides :-[ - so they're more nostalgia than anything aesthetic.

 

[Stu_bert]

Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you. I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?

If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

Plus the fact that with Nikon's decision to make you send your camera in to one of a small handfull of service centers to get somthing as simple as a battery cover replaced, I wouldn't use Nikon if they were giving them away. Support the company that supports you and your right to get is serviced where you want, Buy Canon!!!

To be honest, never had to deal with Nikon in the UK. My experience with Canon is mixed. Through CPS is largely good. Prior to that, not so good. But either way I have had to pay handsomely each time....

- One of the posts broke on the IS unit - which holds it in place. They have to replace the whole IS unit.
- I dropped an L lens (70-300) from no more than 2 ft onto relatively soft ground, broke the focusing. I'd argue that's not really "build like a tank quality!"
- On the 1Ds, the AA filter cannot be replaced separately from the sensor. So the tiny scratch on it, can't be seen, but if I wanted it replaced then that's a few hundred notes...
- Every lens calibration - £30 - although I think they do both bodies
- Try and fix the softness on a 100-400mm (they've tried 3 times and still won't admit it's a lemon!)

The upside is that the Canon repair centre is an hour by car, as frankly there's no way I would use any courier / postal system, based on costs of insurance and complete distrust in their quality of handling.

I can't tell you about Nikon and how they make their kit, but some of the "design" decisions Canon make are dubious in terms of fairness to the customer. Reminds me somewhat of car manufacturers. Which is kind of appropriate as Honda has just tripled my service bill with the "this needs replacement after 2 years" if you want to keep a full service history