Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear

[Albi86]

You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM: 594$
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC: 649$

Not to mention the new Sigma 17-70. Add the new Nikkor 1.8 G primes, the DX primes, the very good walkarounds like 18-105 and 18-300, etc. I could add the 200-400/4 too, but that's not the point: as I said I'm not talking about the +1000-1500$ segment. If price is never a problem, Canon is indeed quite good.

I also never stated that Nikon system is perfect. I stated that Canon is failing in delivering quality at a reasonable price. I'm talking about the segment of market made of people willing to spend some good money, but below the pro-gear price range. With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers. If there is always more value in non-Canon lenses, which means one ends up buying mostly non-Canon lenses, there's very few reasons to stick with Canon cameras. On top of that, as I mentioned before, below the 3000$ price range, Nikon cameras offer more than their Canon counterparts for less money. But the same is true for the mirrorless and CSC segment, clearly dominated by Fuji, Olympus and Sony.

The bigger picture of Canon's recent releases has been: we don't care about the mid-price segment. That's what people complain about, and what's perfectly embodied by old sensor technology and stripped-down-to-the-bone bodies. Sensor shortcomings go down much easier if paired to a good set of features (like the 5D3 or 1DX) or a more affordable price. Unfortunately that's not the case.

 

[Canon-F1]

what the fuk.. the same old 18MP sensor just with some wider hybrid AF area.
and the hybrid focus is still slower then mirrorles cameras.

i feel with the poor simpletons here who thought canon will bring an improved sensor. :

 

[Rienzphotoz]

You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM: 594$
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC: 649$

I've used both those lenses (Sigma: bought and sold in 2010, Tamron: bought and sold in 2011) and they are NOWHERE near the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, be it IQ, built quality or the AF performance. Also those 2 lenses have had numerous quality control issues including but not limited to front focus, back focus, noisy stabilization & noisy AF issues. Spending $600 - $700 on those lenses is not worth it, when one can get a gem of a lens by spending another $300 more to get the EF 17-55 f/2.8 L IS

With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers.

First you were questioning Canon lenses "below $1500", when I gave you proof you quickly turn around and drop your figure to below $1000 ... no problem lets go through those lenses ... but let me agree with you on Nikkor 18-300 VR, I recently purchased this lens and it is a decent performer (not as good as 18-200 VR but decent nevertheless), yes Canon does not have an equivalent of 18-300 VR in price or size.

Here are some great lenses from Canon under $1000, both zooms and primes:
1. Canon EF-S 15-85mm lens = $649
2. Canon EF-S 10-20mm lens = $719
3. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = $699
4. Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L = $674
5. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 L IS = $899
6. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 = $449
7. Canon EF 24mm IS = $649
8. Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS = $579
9. Canon EF 24mm f/1.8 = $449
10. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 = $339
11. Canon EF 50mm Macro = $269
12. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 = $94
13. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro = $399
14. Canon 85mm f/1.8 = $359
15. Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 = 149
16. Canon EF 70-300 = $499
17. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L = $949
Now here are a couple of bonus lenses for you: Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS & Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS normally sell for under $1049 but there are dozens of online stores and regular stores who are selling it for $949 (i.e. below "1 grand"). By the way I have not listed several other decent lenses that are under "1 grand" and also those that can be purchased during sale or refurbished for under "1 grand" e.g. Canon EF 400 f/5.6 L or the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
If someone tells me that they cannot make great images with any one of those above lenses, then they first need to check all the millions of FANTASTIC images made with those lenses on flickr and many other sites, then they need to sign up for a course on some basic understanding of photography.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM: 594$
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC: 649$

I've used both those lenses (Sigma: bought and sold in 2010, Tamron: bought and sold in 2011) and they are NOWHERE near the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, be it IQ, built quality or the AF performance. Also those 2 lenses have had numerous quality control issues including but not limited to front focus, back focus, noisy stabilization & noisy AF issues. Spending $600 - $700 on those lenses is not worth it, when one can get a gem of a lens by spending another $300 more to get the EF 17-55 f/2.8 L IS

With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers.

First you were questioning Canon lenses "below $1500", when I gave you proof you quickly turn around and drop your figure to below $1000 ... no problem lets go through those lenses ... but let me agree with you on Nikkor 18-300 VR, I recently purchased this lens and it is a decent performer (not as good as 18-200 VR but decent nevertheless), yes Canon does not have an equivalent of 18-300 VR in price or size.

Here are some great lenses from Canon under $1000, both zooms and primes:
1. Canon EF-S 15-85mm lens = $649
2. Canon EF-S 10-20mm lens = $719
3. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = $699
4. Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L = $674
5. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 L IS = $899
6. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 = $449
7. Canon EF 24mm IS = $649
8. Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS = $579
9. Canon EF 24mm f/1.8 = $449
10. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 = $339
11. Canon EF 50mm Macro = $269
12. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 = $94
13. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro = $399
14. Canon 85mm f/1.8 = $359
15. Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 = 149
16. Canon EF 70-300 = $499
17. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L = $949
Now here are a couple of bonus lenses for you: Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS & Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS normally sell for under $1049 but there are dozens of online stores and regular stores who are selling it for $949 (i.e. below "1 grand"). By the way I have not listed several other decent lenses that are under "1 grand" and also those that can be purchased during sale or refurbished for under "1 grand" e.g. Canon EF 400 f/5.6 L or the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
If someone tells me that they cannot make great images with any one of those above lenses, then they first need to check all the millions of FANTASTIC images made with those lenses on flickr and many other sites, then they need to sign up for a course on some basic understanding of photography.

Rienz, forget it. It's pointless. Some people will spend an awful lot of time badmouthing Canon and its' products and they're clearly not interested in listening to reason. I'm glad you listed the 15-85 first, it's simply an awesome lens and I miss mine every day simce I went FF.

 

[J.R.]

You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM: 594$
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC: 649$

I've used both those lenses (Sigma: bought and sold in 2010, Tamron: bought and sold in 2011) and they are NOWHERE near the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, be it IQ, built quality or the AF performance. Also those 2 lenses have had numerous quality control issues including but not limited to front focus, back focus, noisy stabilization & noisy AF issues. Spending $600 - $700 on those lenses is not worth it, when one can get a gem of a lens by spending another $300 more to get the EF 17-55 f/2.8 L IS

With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers.

First you were questioning Canon lenses "below $1500", when I gave you proof you quickly turn around and drop your figure to below $1000 ... no problem lets go through those lenses ... but let me agree with you on Nikkor 18-300 VR, I recently purchased this lens and it is a decent performer (not as good as 18-200 VR but decent nevertheless), yes Canon does not have an equivalent of 18-300 VR in price or size.

Here are some great lenses from Canon under $1000, both zooms and primes:
1. Canon EF-S 15-85mm lens = $649
2. Canon EF-S 10-20mm lens = $719
3. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = $699
4. Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L = $674
5. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 L IS = $899
6. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 = $449
7. Canon EF 24mm IS = $649
8. Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS = $579
9. Canon EF 24mm f/1.8 = $449
10. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 = $339
11. Canon EF 50mm Macro = $269
12. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 = $94
13. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro = $399
14. Canon 85mm f/1.8 = $359
15. Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 = 149
16. Canon EF 70-300 = $499
17. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L = $949
Now here are a couple of bonus lenses for you: Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS & Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS normally sell for under $1049 but there are dozens of online stores and regular stores who are selling it for $949 (i.e. below "1 grand"). By the way I have not listed several other decent lenses that are under "1 grand" and also those that can be purchased during sale or refurbished for under "1 grand" e.g. Canon EF 400 f/5.6 L or the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
If someone tells me that they cannot make great images with any one of those above lenses, then they first need to check all the millions of FANTASTIC images made with those lenses on flickr and many other sites, then they need to sign up for a course on some basic understanding of photography.

+1 and excellent points ... But IMHO you are wasting your time and barking up the wrong tree. This debate almost always ends up with hand waving and chest beating in a viscous circle usually something like this-

Comment: I have 4 canon bodies and they have poor IQ?
Q. Huh? Why do you say that?
A. Nikon has 14 stops of DR.
Q. So do you need those stops?
A. Well yes. I need to recover shadow detail from my shots I underexposed by 3 stops.
Q. If you shot correctly how would canon limit you?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon.
Q. But has Canon limited your shots in any way?
A. Always
Q. Can you post some pics where this has happened?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon
Q. But do you have any pics where you've been limited by Canon? If yes, post some shots.
A. Look at DXO, FM
Q. Don't you get it? Can you post any pictures where you have been limited by Canon?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM, the Internet is full of stuff ... Please google it yourself.
Q. You still don't get it. Can you post any pictures where YOUR shots have been limited by Canon?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM
Q. I give up
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM. And you have the gall to accuse me of trolling
Q. You haven't posted any shots where you have been limited in your creativity by Canon ... How do you say Canon's IQ is bad?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM
Q. But how do you claim Canon's IQ is bad?
A. It is, Nikon has more DR than Canon.
Q. Then why don't you go ahead and shoot Nikon?
A. Silence
Q. Ohk, maybe that's the end of that.
A. How can you call me a troll? You have nothing in your response ... Canon is bad, Nikon has more DR than Canon, look at DXO, FM and other internet sites, and oh yes, I think Canon is expensive!
Q. I give up

 

[Rienzphotoz]

You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM: 594$
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC: 649$

I've used both those lenses (Sigma: bought and sold in 2010, Tamron: bought and sold in 2011) and they are NOWHERE near the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, be it IQ, built quality or the AF performance. Also those 2 lenses have had numerous quality control issues including but not limited to front focus, back focus, noisy stabilization & noisy AF issues. Spending $600 - $700 on those lenses is not worth it, when one can get a gem of a lens by spending another $300 more to get the EF 17-55 f/2.8 L IS

With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers.

First you were questioning Canon lenses "below $1500", when I gave you proof you quickly turn around and drop your figure to below $1000 ... no problem lets go through those lenses ... but let me agree with you on Nikkor 18-300 VR, I recently purchased this lens and it is a decent performer (not as good as 18-200 VR but decent nevertheless), yes Canon does not have an equivalent of 18-300 VR in price or size.

Here are some great lenses from Canon under $1000, both zooms and primes:
1. Canon EF-S 15-85mm lens = $649
2. Canon EF-S 10-20mm lens = $719
3. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = $699
4. Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L = $674
5. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 L IS = $899
6. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 = $449
7. Canon EF 24mm IS = $649
8. Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS = $579
9. Canon EF 24mm f/1.8 = $449
10. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 = $339
11. Canon EF 50mm Macro = $269
12. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 = $94
13. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro = $399
14. Canon 85mm f/1.8 = $359
15. Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 = 149
16. Canon EF 70-300 = $499
17. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L = $949
Now here are a couple of bonus lenses for you: Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS & Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS normally sell for under $1049 but there are dozens of online stores and regular stores who are selling it for $949 (i.e. below "1 grand"). By the way I have not listed several other decent lenses that are under "1 grand" and also those that can be purchased during sale or refurbished for under "1 grand" e.g. Canon EF 400 f/5.6 L or the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
If someone tells me that they cannot make great images with any one of those above lenses, then they first need to check all the millions of FANTASTIC images made with those lenses on flickr and many other sites, then they need to sign up for a course on some basic understanding of photography.

+1 and excellent points ... But IMHO you are wasting your time and barking up the wrong tree. This debate almost always ends up with hand waving and chest beating in a viscous circle usually something like this-

Comment: I have 4 canon bodies and they have poor IQ?
Q. Huh? Why do you say that?
A. Nikon has 14 stops of DR.
Q. So do you need those stops?
A. Well yes. I need to recover shadow detail from my shots I underexposed by 3 stops.
Q. If you shot correctly how would canon limit you?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon.
Q. But has Canon limited your shots in any way?
A. Always
Q. Can you post some pics where this has happened?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon
Q. But do you have any pics where you've been limited by Canon? If yes, post some shots.
A. Look at DXO, FM
Q. Don't you get it? Can you post any pictures where you have been limited by Canon?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM, the Internet is full of stuff ... Please google it yourself.
Q. You still don't get it. Can you post any pictures where YOUR shots have been limited by Canon?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM
Q. I give up
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM. And you have the gall to accuse me of trolling
Q. You haven't posted any shots where you have been limited in your creativity by Canon ... How do you say Canon's IQ is bad?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM
Q. But how do you claim Canon's IQ is bad?
A. It is, Nikon has more DR than Canon.
Q. Then why don't you go ahead and shoot Nikon?
A. Silence
Q. Ohk, maybe that's the end of that.
A. How can you call me a troll? You have nothing in your response ... Canon is bad, Nikon has more DR than Canon, look at DXO, FM and other internet sites, and oh yes, I think Canon is expensive!
Q. I give up

Ha ha ha ... very true ... I liked your Q&A session, made me laugh

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Rienz, forget it. It's pointless. Some people will spend an awful lot of time badmouthing Canon and its' products and they're clearly not interested in listening to reason. I'm glad you listed the 15-85 first, it's simply an awesome lens and I miss mine every day simce I went FF.

Although I never owned the EF-S 15-85mm lens, I got to borrow it from a friend of mine for a day ... this was when I had the 7D ... I really liked that lens and almost bought it, but since I always wanted to go FF and was building my EF lenses for quite some time, I gave up the idea and stayed with EF 24-105 f/4 L IS. If I were to stay with APS-C, my first lens would be 15-85 for its versatility and great image quality ... it really works well with the EOS 7D ... one of the best camera, lens combos out there.

 

[Sella174]

On the subject of the sub-$1500 lens segment ... Low-light "performance" is unimportant to me, just as high ISO capabilities. (I'd love an affordable DSLR that can shoot ISO25.) With this in mind, Canon recently "updated" several of the old Ugly-Duckling primes and added IS to them! I do not need IS and in my opinion (and vantage point) Canon just did it as a reason for upping the price.

Canon is also sticking with APS-C sensors, but are not coming to the party with EF-S primes. Why not? Oh yes, they want me to buy an FF prime with IS ... making me pay for optical glass I do not need and for functionality I do not need.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Canon is also sticking with APS-C sensors, but are not coming to the party with EF-S primes. Why not? Oh yes, they want me to buy an FF prime with IS ... making me pay for optical glass I do not need and for functionality I do not need.

Canon already has several prime lenses without IS that work both on FF & Crop and are quite reasonably priced.

 

[Sella174]

Canon already has several prime lenses without IS that work both on FF & Crop and are quite reasonably priced.

It's not just the IS, but the whole benefit of an APS-C size sensor is not realised. And what's the use of a small EOS 100D camera if we are forced to using larger-than-necessary FF primes?

Without malicious intentions, but do please name those primes that are "reasonably priced" and not also more than fifteen years old. Yes, the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is one ... and that's it.

 

[IronChef]

The 100D still bigger than the OMD. Especially with when you attach a big lens on it.
http://j.mp/Yd9RVG


I don't see the 100d succeeding. DSLR's have their strengths and Canon should focus on that. Things like ergonomics, functionality and autofocus. The 100D isn't good at these things and isn't that compact either. What's the point?

 

[Hobby Shooter]

The 100D still bigger than the OMD. Especially with when you attach a big lens on it.
http://j.mp/Yd9RVG


I don't see the 100d succeeding. DSLR's have their strengths and Canon should focus on that. Things like ergonomics, functionality and autofocus. The 100D isn't good at these things and isn't that compact either. What's the point?

How can you say that? It's small but it can still be very usable for people with small hands. When it comes to functionality, what do you mean? I think creative modes etc will be very functional for its' target market. Autofocus- compared to what?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Canon already has several prime lenses without IS that work both on FF & Crop and are quite reasonably priced.

It's not just the IS, but the whole benefit of an APS-C size sensor is not realised. And what's the use of a small EOS 100D camera if we are forced to using larger-than-necessary FF primes?

Without malicious intentions, but do please name those primes that are "reasonably priced" and not also more than fifteen years old. Yes, the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is one ... and that's it.

I mean no disrespect to you or your gear but looking at your gear list in your signature, I see you use what most people consider as an "old" camera and lens set up ... so are you suggesting that the gear that you are currently using is limiting your creative abilities? are they not good enough for you? Are you suggesting that 15+ year old lenses are not able provide enough resolving power for your EOS 30D? ... going by our gear list, you do not have any fast primes other than f/2.8 ... the 50mm f/1.8 (regardless of its age) is a fantastic lens for just $94, by the way fast prime are not just about "low light performance" (step down the f/stop on any of the f/1.4 or 1.8 lenses and see what they can do) ... there are many great prime lenses that are well below $500, some of which I have already listed in my earlier post e.g. 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 etc, and there are also several more lenses which I did not list, all of them can easily out resolve what your 30D is capable of. First you were complaining about "without IS" lenses, when I tell there are many primes without IS you start complaining that they are 15+ years old, but those 15+ year old lenses can make AWESOME images with your 30D. You say: Canon is "making me pay for optical glass I do not need and for functionality I do not need" ... but no one can "make you pay" anything, if you are not happy or satisfied with 15+ year old Canon lenses and that your EOS 30D only needs the latest lens, start by purchasing the 40 f/2.8 or you can switch to Nikon, Sony or whoever it is that is giving what you want. Canon markets to a huge customer base who want/like Image Stabilization ... now we can all scoff at that customer base and say they are hobbyists, beginners or whatever but that is the customer base which brings in big the money for Canon ... one has to remember that Canon is a profit making company that has a responsibility to its shareholders ... just because a few customers want cheap primes without IS for their APS-C cameras it is not gonna happen .... like it or lump it Image Stabilization is here to stay and it is very naive to think that those latest lenses are going to cost similar to 15+ year old lenses.

 

[IronChef]

The 100D still bigger than the OMD. Especially with when you attach a big lens on it.
http://j.mp/Yd9RVG


I don't see the 100d succeeding. DSLR's have their strengths and Canon should focus on that. Things like ergonomics, functionality and autofocus. The 100D isn't good at these things and isn't that compact either. What's the point?

How can you say that? It's small but it can still be very usable for people with small hands. When it comes to functionality, what do you mean? I think creative modes etc will be very functional for its' target market. Autofocus- compared to what?

I'm sure it's useable for people with small hands, but generally it's not as ergonomic as a bigger DSLR. The 700D has better specs and is just $100 more. The 100D it isn't that more compact. The problem is the thickness http://j.mp/13hzTJb. Thick items will bulge your bag much more than thin and wide items, like books or magazines. Also, the lenses are still big.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

The 100D still bigger than the OMD. Especially with when you attach a big lens on it.
http://j.mp/Yd9RVG

http://canonrumors.com/forum/Smileys/default/shocked.gif
I don't see the 100d succeeding. DSLR's have their strengths and Canon should focus on that. Things like ergonomics, functionality and autofocus. The 100D isn't good at these things and isn't that compact either. What's the point?

Olympus OM-D E-M5 is a Micro Four Thirds mirror less camera whereas Canon 100D is an APS-C sensor DSLR camera obviously there is going to be a difference in size :

 

[Sella174]

I mean no disrespect to you or your gear but looking at your gear list in your signature, I see you use what most people consider as an "old" camera and lens set up ... so are you suggesting that the gear that you are currently using is limiting your creative abilities? are they not good enough for you? Are you suggesting that 15+ year old lenses are not able provide enough resolving power for your EOS 30D? ...

The photographic gear that I have is gear that works for me. In no way am I dissatisfied with the 30D and the three lenses I own. My point is that every year Canon brings out new cameras and lenses; and every year I don't "upgrade" my gear because none of the new offerings really interest me.

The EF 24mm f/2.8 is a good lens, but ... (1) my c.1971 Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:3.5/24 is better in all departments; and (2) the old micro-motor AF without real-time manual focus is really old technology. So why shouldn't I expect an updated version, with USM, after 24 years in production? (I may just mention that the 24mm is mostly used at f/11.)

I did buy the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, but sold it again - didn't like the colours. I also sold my EF 50mm f/1.4 USM when I dumped my Canon film gear - a 50mm works on FF, but not CF ... for me that is.

... but no one can "make you pay" anything ...

Canon is. Take the EOS 6D and the (discontinued) EOS 5D Mk.II ... image that FF sensor is now a CF sensor (same MP, etc., just CF instead of FF) and what do you get ... a "Rebel" in disguise.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I mean no disrespect to you or your gear but looking at your gear list in your signature, I see you use what most people consider as an "old" camera and lens set up ... so are you suggesting that the gear that you are currently using is limiting your creative abilities? are they not good enough for you? Are you suggesting that 15+ year old lenses are not able provide enough resolving power for your EOS 30D? ...

The photographic gear that I have is gear that works for me. In no way am I dissatisfied with the 30D and the three lenses I own. My point is that every year Canon brings out new cameras and lenses; and every year I don't "upgrade" my gear because none of the new offerings really interest me.

The EF 24mm f/2.8 is a good lens, but ... (1) my c.1971 Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:3.5/24 is better in all departments; and (2) the old micro-motor AF without real-time manual focus is really old technology. So why shouldn't I expect an updated version, with USM, after 24 years in production? (I may just mention that the 24mm is mostly used at f/11.)

I did buy the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, but sold it again - didn't like the colours. I also sold my EF 50mm f/1.4 USM when I dumped my Canon film gear - a 50mm works on FF, but not CF ... for me that is.

... but no one can "make you pay" anything ...

Canon is. Take the EOS 6D and the (discontinued) EOS 5D Mk.II ... image that FF sensor is now a CF sensor (same MP, etc., just CF instead of FF) and what do you get ... a "Rebel" in disguise.

Your post is full of contradictions, you say you are in "noway dissatisfied with the 30D and the three lenses" you own and that you "don't upgrade every year" not to mention that you use a camera which was made 8 years ago (no disrespect intended), you also do not want to buy the new IS lenses, yet you say: "why shouldn't I expect an updated version" ... profit making companies do not cater to customers like you who upgrade once in almost a decade ... the world has changed brother, wake up and smell the coffee, majority of the customers now want IS lenses and they are willing to pay the money for it. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful to you or your gear, (you can probably make better images with your "older" gear than I can with my 5D MK III and the relatively newer lenses), but those are the facts.

 

[Sella174]

... profit making companies do not cater to customers like you who upgrade once in almost a decade ...

Canon took nearly 24 years before updating the 24mm f/2.8 and the 35mm f/2 lenses. It kind of stands to reason that those of us who use(d) those lenses didn't upgrade because we had nothing to upgrade to ... what we already own(ed) was it.

My point with the fifteen years is that, apart from the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM and, oh, the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon has basically placed us users of non-L primes on Neptune with regards to our important to their business model. That's their decision. They know best.

The coffee smells great ... but just how well are those new IS primes selling?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

The coffee smells great

Ha ha ha ... good one.

but just how well are those new IS primes selling?

That's a good question, I can't speak for the rest of the world but 5 of my colleagues & friends bought the 24 IS & 28 IS (2 bought the 24 and 3 bought the 28), had a chance to check out the 28 IS, it is amazingly sharp ... personally I wanted to buy either the 24 IS or 28 IS, but I'm holding off till a sale comes along (maybe Christmas time?) ... but the price of 28 IS did come down to $579, but I'm a bit greedy waiting till it goes down to at least $500 ;D

 

[bholliman]

While the SL1/100D is not a camera that interest me, I think it will sell pretty well for point and shoot owners looking to move up to a DLSR.

My wife currently uses a P&S and hates to use my 6D or 7D because they are so large and heavy (especially with the 70-200 2.8 II attached). She said the SL1 is something something she would consider.