EOS 5D Mark IV Testing Has Begun [CR2]

[privatebydesign]

Hmm, so you bought one Canon body and two Canon lenses, how exactly did Canon lose out on that one?

I was going to buy two Canon bodies and four Canon lenses (add 5D4, 100-400L II and 1.4x TC III). That's and additional, what, $6,000 orso? And iI'll be selling Canon lenses used which will ultimately displace some new sales.

Corporation valuations would be much higher if they were based on customer "I was going to buy" assertions, but they aren't and you didn't; however you did give Canon several thousand dollars, they are very happy.

Given the plethora of very high quality new lenses I don't think your 17-40 and 85 f1.8 will upset the new lens market. Anybody in the used 17-40 market is not in the 16-35 f4 IS market, and nobody cares about the sale of a used lens that can be had new with warranty for $349.

 

[tron]

It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?

Have you bought Sigma 150-600C yet? If no I guess it is because you think 600mm are better than 400mm?

I think 600mm on a lens that focuses using f/5.6 points is better than 560mm on a lens that focuses only with the f/8 points, especially when the optical performance is the same or better at 1/3 of a stop faster (f.7.1 versus f/8) and it's $1,089 versus $2,628 (100-400L II + 1.4x TC III).

If you really need 600mm with an APS-C camera maybe. Otherwise the 100-400 beats it at the ... well 100-400 range! And good luck carring a 2.8Kg lens...

 

[Don Haines]

It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?

Have you bought Sigma 150-600C yet? If no I guess it is because you think 600mm are better than 400mm?

I think 600mm on a lens that focuses using f/5.6 points is better than 560mm on a lens that focuses only with the f/8 points, especially when the optical performance is the same or better at 1/3 of a stop faster (f.7.1 versus f/8) and it's $1,089 versus $2,628 (100-400L II + 1.4x TC III).

+1

 

[tron]

So get the Sigma and tell us your opinion 8)

 

[Lee Jay]

It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?

Have you bought Sigma 150-600C yet? If no I guess it is because you think 600mm are better than 400mm?

I think 600mm on a lens that focuses using f/5.6 points is better than 560mm on a lens that focuses only with the f/8 points, especially when the optical performance is the same or better at 1/3 of a stop faster (f.7.1 versus f/8) and it's $1,089 versus $2,628 (100-400L II + 1.4x TC III).

If you really need 600mm with an APS-C camera maybe. Otherwise the 100-400 beats it at the ... well 100-400 range! And good luck carring a 2.8Kg lens...

It's 1.9kg.

 

[Don Haines]

It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?

Have you bought Sigma 150-600C yet? If no I guess it is because you think 600mm are better than 400mm?

I think 600mm on a lens that focuses using f/5.6 points is better than 560mm on a lens that focuses only with the f/8 points, especially when the optical performance is the same or better at 1/3 of a stop faster (f.7.1 versus f/8) and it's $1,089 versus $2,628 (100-400L II + 1.4x TC III).

If you really need 600mm with an APS-C camera maybe. Otherwise the 100-400 beats it at the ... well 100-400 range! And good luck carring a 2.8Kg lens...

When you are after small birds, it seems like you never have enough mm's.... I bet if someone came out with an 800F8 that had good IQ, people would jump on it....

 

[Eldar]

It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?

Have you bought Sigma 150-600C yet? If no I guess it is because you think 600mm are better than 400mm?

I think 600mm on a lens that focuses using f/5.6 points is better than 560mm on a lens that focuses only with the f/8 points, especially when the optical performance is the same or better at 1/3 of a stop faster (f.7.1 versus f/8) and it's $1,089 versus $2,628 (100-400L II + 1.4x TC III).

If you really need 600mm with an APS-C camera maybe. Otherwise the 100-400 beats it at the ... well 100-400 range! And good luck carring a 2.8Kg lens...

When you are after small birds, it seems like you never have enough mm's.... I bet if someone came out with an 800F8 that had good IQ, people would jump on it....

Indeed. I use both the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders with my 600mm and very often have to crop more than I like. I don´t have a feeder, where I can be closer to the birds though.

 

[Lee Jay]

It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?

Have you bought Sigma 150-600C yet? If no I guess it is because you think 600mm are better than 400mm?

I think 600mm on a lens that focuses using f/5.6 points is better than 560mm on a lens that focuses only with the f/8 points, especially when the optical performance is the same or better at 1/3 of a stop faster (f.7.1 versus f/8) and it's $1,089 versus $2,628 (100-400L II + 1.4x TC III).

If you really need 600mm with an APS-C camera maybe. Otherwise the 100-400 beats it at the ... well 100-400 range! And good luck carring a 2.8Kg lens...

When you are after small birds, it seems like you never have enough mm's.... I bet if someone came out with an 800F8 that had good IQ, people would jump on it....

Indeed. I use both the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders with my 600mm and very often have to crop more than I like. I don´t have a feeder, where I can be closer to the birds though.

And I've used both wide and teleconverters on my telescope which is natively 2800mm and f/10. It's 2000mm and f/7 with the wide converter, and up to 5600mm with a 2x.

 

[tron]

It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?

Have you bought Sigma 150-600C yet? If no I guess it is because you think 600mm are better than 400mm?

I think 600mm on a lens that focuses using f/5.6 points is better than 560mm on a lens that focuses only with the f/8 points, especially when the optical performance is the same or better at 1/3 of a stop faster (f.7.1 versus f/8) and it's $1,089 versus $2,628 (100-400L II + 1.4x TC III).

If you really need 600mm with an APS-C camera maybe. Otherwise the 100-400 beats it at the ... well 100-400 range! And good luck carring a 2.8Kg lens...

It's 1.9kg.

Sorry I used this link:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082152-REG/sigma_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_dg_os.html

which is the sports version of the lens...

 

[tron]

It does not seem an upgrade to me. But anyway why do you say it is too late for 100-400?

Have you bought Sigma 150-600C yet? If no I guess it is because you think 600mm are better than 400mm?

I think 600mm on a lens that focuses using f/5.6 points is better than 560mm on a lens that focuses only with the f/8 points, especially when the optical performance is the same or better at 1/3 of a stop faster (f.7.1 versus f/8) and it's $1,089 versus $2,628 (100-400L II + 1.4x TC III).

If you really need 600mm with an APS-C camera maybe. Otherwise the 100-400 beats it at the ... well 100-400 range! And good luck carring a 2.8Kg lens...

When you are after small birds, it seems like you never have enough mm's.... I bet if someone came out with an 800F8 that had good IQ, people would jump on it....

Indeed. I use both the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders with my 600mm and very often have to crop more than I like. I don´t have a feeder, where I can be closer to the birds though.

YES! A smaller 800mm would be a bonus. I recently found out that (A 600mm wouldn't be enough!)

 

[mtavel]

I don't remember ever seeing so much pop-up flash love in one place. This thread belongs in the internet hall of fame or something.

 

[Lee Jay]

I don't remember ever seeing so much pop-up flash love in one place. This thread belongs in the internet hall of fame or something.

It's a highly useful tool that many don't seem to have a clue as to how to use.

 

[Loswr]

I don't remember ever seeing so much pop-up flash love in one place. This thread belongs in the internet hall of fame or something.

It's a highly useful tool that many don't seem to have a clue as to how to use.

It's a highly useful tool for those enamored of the 'deer in the headlights' look.

 

[Lee Jay]

I don't remember ever seeing so much pop-up flash love in one place. This thread belongs in the internet hall of fame or something.

It's a highly useful tool that many don't seem to have a clue as to how to use.

It's a highly useful tool for those enamored of the 'deer in the headlights' look.

Nice example of "don't seem to have a clue as to how to use".

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't remember ever seeing so much pop-up flash love in one place. This thread belongs in the internet hall of fame or something.

It's a highly useful tool that many don't seem to have a clue as to how to use.

Or, it is a useless piece of junk that never fails to disappoint.

Both are valid opinions depending on how you look at it, what you shoot and what you need as far as results go. I think "highly useful" is stretching it somewhat, but when the popups became optical remote flash controllers it certainly upped the functionality of them.

For my uses I have zero interest in a popup flash, indeed a camera fitted with one would be less appealing to me than a body without the 'feature', maybe I don't have a clue how to use one, but I am happy to not use one, though I grant my use case might be coming from a completely different place than any other individual user.

 

[kphoto99]

I don't remember ever seeing so much pop-up flash love in one place. This thread belongs in the internet hall of fame or something.

It's a highly useful tool that many don't seem to have a clue as to how to use.

Or, it is a useless piece of junk that never fails to disappoint.

Both are valid opinions depending on how you look at it, what you shoot and what you need as far as results go. I think "highly useful" is stretching it somewhat, but when the popups became optical remote flash controllers it certainly upped the functionality of them.

For my uses I have zero interest in a popup flash, indeed a camera fitted with one would be less appealing to me than a body without the 'feature', maybe I don't have a clue how to use one, but I am happy to not use one, though I grant my use case might be coming from a completely different place than any other individual user.

The big difference is that if the popup exists you have the option of never using it, but if the popup does not exist nobody has an option of using it.

The arguments that it adds cost or makes it harder to weather seal the camera are disproved by cameras like the T3 and 7DII respectively.

As far as the argument that a lens hood block light, the solution would be to have an articulating/telescoping popup that goes higher. The great engineers at Canon should be able to solve that easily.

 

[meywd]

I don't remember ever seeing so much pop-up flash love in one place. This thread belongs in the internet hall of fame or something.

It's a highly useful tool that many don't seem to have a clue as to how to use.

Or, it is a useless piece of junk that never fails to disappoint.

Both are valid opinions depending on how you look at it, what you shoot and what you need as far as results go. I think "highly useful" is stretching it somewhat, but when the popups became optical remote flash controllers it certainly upped the functionality of them.

For my uses I have zero interest in a popup flash, indeed a camera fitted with one would be less appealing to me than a body without the 'feature', maybe I don't have a clue how to use one, but I am happy to not use one, though I grant my use case might be coming from a completely different place than any other individual user.

The big difference is that if the popup exists you have the option of never using it, but if the popup does not exist nobody has an option of using it.

The arguments that it adds cost or makes it harder to weather seal the camera are disproved by cameras like the T3 and 7DII respectively.

As far as the argument that a lens hood block light, the solution would be to have an articulating/telescoping popup that goes higher. The great engineers at Canon should be able to solve that easily.

The great engineers at Canon didn't put it in the 1D or 5D series, which is what this whole debate is about, instead of a pop-up flash I want better high ISO performance so I don't have to use the thing at all.

 

[3kramd5]

The arguments that it adds cost or makes it harder to weather seal the camera are disproved by cameras like the T3 and 7DII respectively.

For those cameras to disprove the arguments you would need:

1) an apples to apples costing for the T3 produced without a popup, and
2) a 7DII without a popup which somehow required the same engineering to weather seal a location where there is no cutout.

No, those two arguments are unequivocally true. What really varies is how much cost is added by both inclusions. For cameras with substantial production runs (e.g. the Rebel series and maybe the 7D series), a little more engineering isn't going to impact the cost as much as for cameras with fairly small production runs, like the 1D or D4.

 

[mtavel]

The great engineers at Canon didn't put it in the 1D or 5D series, which is what this whole debate is about, instead of a pop-up flash I want better high ISO performance so I don't have to use the thing at all.

Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Of course pop-up flash has it's uses. And as anything, the more skill you have, the better you can take advantage of it. But I typically see pop-up flash used out of necessity (lack of light) not because its light is flattering or complementary. Higher sensitivity and usable DR would keep us from having to resort to something like pop-up flash in most situations.

And think of all the people using pop up flash at a stadium or right in front of aquarium glass that could have been spared from humiliation by the 5D!

 

[Loswr]

I'm just following your lead.

Feel free to point out factual errors that I've posted, where I have not acknowledged my error when it was pointed out.

You never acknowledge your errors, you just go quiet and disappear.

So...no, you apparently can't point out such an example, but you're quite willing to post yet another factual error of your own to toss on the ever-growing pile.

I even have the courtesy to acknowledge my errors when you are the one pointing them out (link).

So...who went quiet and disappeared?