Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
JonAustin
Telecom / IT consultant and semi-pro photographer
LetTheRightLensIn said:
I would love a crop function on my 5DIII. Most of the time, I shoot in mRAW (10mp). I only switch to full RAW (22mp) when I lack the reach I need, and then crop in post. But I would much rather have the ability to crop in-camera, rather than waste all the storage space (both in-camera and after transfer).
On the lens front, I'm eager for the 100-400 II, and hopeful that its reviews will be along the lines of the excellent new 16-35/4IS. It would make an excellent companion to my 24-105 when hiking. (I'm on my 2nd 24-105, and a refresh would be welcome there, as well!) If the 100-400 II isn't announced, or if its reviews fall short, I'll just get a 1.4x III for my 70-200 II, live with the shorter reach, and continue to crop in post.
Upvote
0
mrsfotografie said:
I really cannot imagine shooting in anything other than full RAW. Maybe I'm different than some because I do print large on occasion but I'd rather carry cards than switch modes during a shoot. I now wait to be schooled by those who tell me I'm missing the point. I can take it.
Upvote
0
slclick said:
The biggest I've printed is 80x120cm on canvas, and that was from 10 mp. I'm really happy with the results.
Coming from a 40D I've never felt the need for more megapixels so I've stuck to that resolution. 99.99% of my photo's get viewed on a monitor anyway and for that purpose I even process my raws to jpg's with 1920 pixels long edge which is fine.
I must note that I almost never crop, and if I do that on occasion it will be only minor edge crops to remove a disturbing feature on the edge. If the composition isn't right without cropping, the whole photo gets binned.
Upvote
0
I know all the speculation is for the 100-400L, but, if I am going to think BIG.... EF 800 mm f/5.6
Just sayin'
I've been thinking about it, and my kit has been updated to the point where I think I'll only be interested in the 100-400 II if it works very well with the 1.4 tc or if the IQ/AF/IS are just outstanding. But the 2x tc with the 70-200 ii has become my travel combination and the 70-200 II has become my short telephoto lens. As a result, I only use the 100-400L for local birding trips (@ 400 mm). A new lens would have to be good enough to expand that niche to justify the expected cost differential.
Just sayin'
I've been thinking about it, and my kit has been updated to the point where I think I'll only be interested in the 100-400 II if it works very well with the 1.4 tc or if the IQ/AF/IS are just outstanding. But the 2x tc with the 70-200 ii has become my travel combination and the 70-200 II has become my short telephoto lens. As a result, I only use the 100-400L for local birding trips (@ 400 mm). A new lens would have to be good enough to expand that niche to justify the expected cost differential.
Upvote
0
mrsfotografie said:LetTheRightLensIn said:
I was suggesting it would be a croppable full-frame camera
Hopefully that is spring 2015.
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
Actually that brings up a good counter point though, for video, it actually DOES offer extra reach/mag as valid reasons as well. That is something it's about time they did well for video mode.
Although for still it doesn't.
Upvote
0
slclick said:
You are missing the point. The point here is some distant wildlife or whanot and where you don't care about the frame borders and would always cut them off before printing or whatnot anyway.
For other stuff I always shoot full RAW and don't bother with sRAW/mRAW which are not 100% true RAW anyway.
Upvote
0
mrsfotografie said:
Wow really? A lot of scenes don't look best at 3:2 or 2:3 though and what if it does look best at those ratios but you just didn't or were not able to frame tight enough, even the most amazing shot is junked?
Upvote
0
slclick said:
The point is, keeping 20MB per image of nothing but blue sky is wasteful. It's common for me to be shooting at 640mm-equivalent (400mm on 1.6-crop) and still need to crop 2x or more (meaning, 3/4 or more of the pixels are not part of the final image). I'd rather save the space and have a deeper raw buffer. In fact, I shoot JPEG in these cases largely because of buffer limitations.
Upvote
0
mrsfotografie said:
You must shoot a lot of very slow or stationary subjects. It's simply impossible to reliably and accurately frame many of the subjects I shoot, which are often moving as fast as 60 degrees per second relative to me. Shooting those with a 3 degree total field of view, it's hard enough just to keep them in the frame much less to make sure they are perfectly framed.
Essentially, I crop every image I shoot, at least a little.
Upvote
0
28-300mm non L for the 6D ? Really ?
Much prefer a 20-135mm or 24-200mm, keep it under £500 and I might even buy one ;-)
Much prefer a 20-135mm or 24-200mm, keep it under £500 and I might even buy one ;-)
Upvote
0
For a year I've eyed the 28-300L because of the convenience of the range, but the $2500 is too much. I can find them used for less but what I want to know is the IQ really up to L standards?
I suppose the other option is getting a 24-70 and a 70-300. If I go that route, the question becomes which 24-70. Tamron f/2.8, the Canon f/4, or a used Canon f/2.8, which are all in the same ballpark price wise.
BUT... if they come out with a good and less expensive 28-300 I would probably go that way.
I suppose the other option is getting a 24-70 and a 70-300. If I go that route, the question becomes which 24-70. Tamron f/2.8, the Canon f/4, or a used Canon f/2.8, which are all in the same ballpark price wise.
BUT... if they come out with a good and less expensive 28-300 I would probably go that way.
Upvote
0
Just guessing here - but something "Big" I think means big megapixel. That is why the 1D is shown but the place for the "X" or "insert letter here" is shadowed. If it was a 7D, it wouldn't make sense to show the 1D in the teaser.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
