Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.

[torger]

the interior architectural shots at f/8 are even worse; the diffraction is clearly evident in preventing additional detail from being rendered.

Diffraction issue does not have anything with the format to do, if your goal is to have a large DOF. With larger format you need longer focal lengths for the same FOV, and then need smaller aperture to compensate the DOF and - voilà - no difference. That is medium format and large format struggles with diffraction in the same way. Still people seem to use those formats, at even higher pixel counts... hmm...

What makes diffraction a challenge is the resolving power, 36 megapixel on FF is just as "bad" as 36 megapixel on medium format.

With a high resolution back you can't expect the sensor to be the most limiting factor for all your shots. Instead you are pleased that you have a sensor that max out the expensive lenses you have (probably more money in those than in the camera body) and get the most of your technique. If you think your pixels are not jagged enough for a particular shot, you can always downsize. However, fairly soft pixels both enlarge and sharpen well, so since I do prints I'm not a big fan of low rez jagged pixels a la Sigma (having no AA filter on sub 30 megapixel cameras is a bad idea (tm)).

At some point the pixel count will be "excessive", which would be when center sharpness at ideal apertures (~f/4) does not get much gain. I think that limit is around 45-50 megapixels.

 

[altenae]

@torger

Diffraction issue does not have anything with the format to do

I have to disagree.
Pixel density matters !

DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) is the result of a mathematical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly affect image sharpness at the pixel level. Diffraction at the DLA is only barely visible when viewed at full-size (100%, 1 pixel = 1 pixel) on a display or output to a very large print. As sensor pixel density increases, the narrowest aperture we can use to get perfectly pixel sharp images gets wider.

If I read this , I would say 18MP on a 1.6 has a lower DLA aperture then 18MP on a full frame.
The pixel density is higher with the 18mp on a 1.6 ??
The smaller the pixel size the lower the DLA Aperture

What makes diffraction a challenge is the resolving power, 36 megapixel on FF is just as "bad" as 36 megapixel on medium format.

The 1.6 crop is using less of the lenses glass (resolve power) then the same lens on a FF.
So I would say the FF 36 MP will resolve more detail then 36MP on a 1.6

 

[torger]

DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) is the result of a mathematical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly affect image sharpness at the pixel level. Diffraction at the DLA is only barely visible when viewed at full-size (100%, 1 pixel = 1 pixel) on a display or output to a very large print. As sensor pixel density increases, the narrowest aperture we can use to get perfectly pixel sharp images gets wider.

If I read this , I would say 18MP on a 1.6 has a lower DLA aperture then 18MP on a full frame.
The pixel density is higher with the 18mp on a 1.6 ??

Or am I wrong ?

What makes diffraction a challenge is the resolving power, 36 megapixel on FF is just as "bad" as 36 megapixel on medium format.

The 1.6 crop is using less of the lenses glass (resolve power) then the same lens on a FF.
So I would say the FF 36 MP will resolve more detail then 36MP on a 1.6

Diffraction is not the only limiting factor. There's also resolving power of the lens. Smaller formats generally have sharper lenses, but not to fully compensate for the smaller format, so at some point lenses start to limit. There's also a limit to how large you can open up the aperture and still have good resolving power from the lens. You may in some formats hit those limits.

36 MP on 1.6 crop then resolving power of the lens is very limiting.

Another thing - a mildly diffraction-softened image responds well to deconvolution sharpening, so one should not be too afraid of it.

 

[altenae]

Another thing - a mildly diffraction-softened image responds well to deconvolution sharpening, so one should not be too afraid of it.

True.

One thing is certain the amount op resolving power of lenses will end somewhere. (not sure when )

 

[lensla]

I've been lurking these forums for months. But I registered just now to tell the OP that he sounds ridiculous.
Seriously. I'm a former Nikon shooter (that still prefers a number of things about Nikons) and you
sound like an impatient, petulant child.

First of all, there isn't a professional on this planet that actually thinks the 24-70 needs IS. In fact,
it's easy to sort out the professionals from amateurs based solely on how they feel about there being
no IS on the 24-70. It's a simple test actually. Do you think that the new lens is overpriced because
it has no IS? Congratulations, you're an amateur/hobbyist photographer. Nothing wrong with that, let's
just not confuse terms here.

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. A 24-70 focal range lens, especially on a full frame where most
pros will use it, renders IS almost completely useless. Just about every situation (very few) in which IS would
be useful can be covered using proper technique and/or a 100 dollar monopod. Longer focal lengths, sure, IS
makes sense, and is quite useful. But you cannot look at the MTF chart of the newest 24-70, which looks like it
might even blow away some primes in its focal range, and go "oh that's overpriced". It shows your ignorance.
It's a professional lens. A professional tool. The added durability and sealing alone make it worth it for a pro,
they make it back with one or two photo shoots.

And come on. Complaining about Canon not having an answer for the D800? It's been out for like
72 hours. Really? I mean, really? Now you're going to whine like the kid who's upset that the
neighbor boy got a new hot wheels toy and you have to wait 'til Christmas? Come on. Ridiculous.
Settle down. Obviously Canon is releasing something soon. Wait to see what the specs are.
And stop worrying about unimportant things like IS on a wide angle, and huge megapixels on a 35mm.

 

[cps_user]

Well, newbie, let me tell you - I'm a professional and I..uhm...actually agree with you.

 

[D_Rochat]

I've been lurking these forums for months. But I registered just now to tell the OP that he sounds ridiculous.
Seriously. I'm a former Nikon shooter (that still prefers a number of things about Nikons) and you
sound like an impatient, petulant child.

First of all, there isn't a professional on this planet that actually thinks the 24-70 needs IS. In fact,
it's easy to sort out the professionals from amateurs based solely on how they feel about there being
no IS on the 24-70. It's a simple test actually. Do you think that the new lens is overpriced because
it has no IS? Congratulations, you're an amateur/hobbyist photographer. Nothing wrong with that, let's
just not confuse terms here.

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. A 24-70 focal range lens, especially on a full frame where most
pros will use it, renders IS almost completely useless. Just about every situation (very few) in which IS would
be useful can be covered using proper technique and/or a 100 dollar monopod. Longer focal lengths, sure, IS
makes sense, and is quite useful. But you cannot look at the MTF chart of the newest 24-70, which looks like it
might even blow away some primes in its focal range, and go "oh that's overpriced". It shows your ignorance.
It's a professional lens. A professional tool. The added durability and sealing alone make it worth it for a pro,
they make it back with one or two photo shoots.

And come on. Complaining about Canon not having an answer for the D800? It's been out for like
72 hours. Really? I mean, really? Now you're going to whine like the kid who's upset that the
neighbor boy got a new hot wheels toy and you have to wait 'til Christmas? Come on. Ridiculous.
Settle down. Obviously Canon is releasing something soon. Wait to see what the specs are.
And stop worrying about unimportant things like IS on a wide angle, and huge megapixels on a 35mm.

I agree with you for the most part, BUT
Going from the current MSRP of the version I & II, there is a 64% increase in price

If you compare the MSRPs of the 70-200 version I & II (IS) from 2010, there was only a (reasonable) 25% increase.

There was a 67% increase from the version I non IS to the version II IS.

I think it's pretty reasonable to expect IS in the new 24-70 (needed or not) for that that type of increase in price.

 

[briansquibb]

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. .

I am a known non IS person in that I prefer to keep the shutter speed up with iso increases.

However I dont think that it is a gimmic on the 24-105. I find that 1/60 is about the minimum for non motion blur for slow moving humans. Without IS this leads to a problem when at the 100 end of the lens and 1/60 is all I am going to get without impacting IQ.

I would perhaps agree if you said about no need for IS on lens 50mm or over - but on the 24-105 IS is not a gimic

 

[awinphoto]

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. .

I am a known non IS person in that I prefer to keep the shutter speed up with iso increases.

However I dont think that it is a gimmic on the 24-105. I find that 1/60 is about the minimum for non motion blur for slow moving humans. Without IS this leads to a problem when at the 100 end of the lens and 1/60 is all I am going to get without impacting IQ.

I would perhaps agree if you said about no need for IS on lens 50mm or over - but on the 24-105 IS is not a gimic

I agree... there are times IS works, other times it wont... I can buy you a few stops hand holding but wont stop motion blur, and others, like shooting on an airplane or helicopter, no amount of IS will help and shutter speeds need to take over.

 

[jaduffy007]

Very nice the noise in the Nikon D800....
I will switch to Canon !!!! (funny me)

in all seriousness, I agree with the noise comments. I'm very surprised at the amount of grain present even in ISO 100 JPGs shown on Nikon's own site. the interior architectural shots at f/8 are even worse; the diffraction is clearly evident in preventing additional detail from being rendered.

Are you guys seriously ragging on the stellar images of the library interior from the D800? wow. I think the images I've seen from the D800 are outstanding. Wait for it....nope, the world didn't end.

 

[barryjphoto]

I can't wait to see all the Craigslist and Ebay EF lenses after the impatient users jump to Nikon.

 

[briansquibb]

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. .

I am a known non IS person in that I prefer to keep the shutter speed up with iso increases.

However I dont think that it is a gimmic on the 24-105. I find that 1/60 is about the minimum for non motion blur for slow moving humans. Without IS this leads to a problem when at the 100 end of the lens and 1/60 is all I am going to get without impacting IQ.

I would perhaps agree if you said about no need for IS on lens 50mm or over - but on the 24-105 IS is not a gimic

I agree... there are times IS works, other times it wont... I can buy you a few stops hand holding but wont stop motion blur, and others, like shooting on an airplane or helicopter, no amount of IS will help and shutter speeds need to take over.

I understand that - especially on the 400 f/2.8 which I was taking at 1/60 (on a gimbal)

Here is an example where IS has assisted 70-200II on a 1.3 @155mm taken at 1/125

Camera Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Focal Length: 155.0mm
Aperture: f/2.8
Exposure Time: 0.0080 s (1/125)
ISO equiv: 400

 

[lensla]

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. .

I am a known non IS person in that I prefer to keep the shutter speed up with iso increases.

However I dont think that it is a gimmic on the 24-105. I find that 1/60 is about the minimum for non motion blur for slow moving humans. Without IS this leads to a problem when at the 100 end of the lens and 1/60 is all I am going to get without impacting IQ.

I would perhaps agree if you said about no need for IS on lens 50mm or over - but on the 24-105 IS is not a gimic

I agree... there are times IS works, other times it wont... I can buy you a few stops hand holding but wont stop motion blur, and others, like shooting on an airplane or helicopter, no amount of IS will help and shutter speeds need to take over.

Sorry. I didn't mean for it to sound like it's a gimmick overall. The 105 end of the 24-105 makes the IS useful. Actually in the 80+ range it becomes useful. And the 24-105 is an f/4 making it even more useful than on a 2.8. It'd be a gimmick on the 24-70 2.8.

 

[wickidwombat]

I've been lurking these forums for months. But I registered just now to tell the OP that he sounds ridiculous.
Seriously. I'm a former Nikon shooter (that still prefers a number of things about Nikons) and you
sound like an impatient, petulant child.

First of all, there isn't a professional on this planet that actually thinks the 24-70 needs IS. In fact,
it's easy to sort out the professionals from amateurs based solely on how they feel about there being
no IS on the 24-70. It's a simple test actually. Do you think that the new lens is overpriced because
it has no IS? Congratulations, you're an amateur/hobbyist photographer. Nothing wrong with that, let's
just not confuse terms here.

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. A 24-70 focal range lens, especially on a full frame where most
pros will use it, renders IS almost completely useless. Just about every situation (very few) in which IS would
be useful can be covered using proper technique and/or a 100 dollar monopod. Longer focal lengths, sure, IS
makes sense, and is quite useful. But you cannot look at the MTF chart of the newest 24-70, which looks like it
might even blow away some primes in its focal range, and go "oh that's overpriced". It shows your ignorance.
It's a professional lens. A professional tool. The added durability and sealing alone make it worth it for a pro,
they make it back with one or two photo shoots.

And come on. Complaining about Canon not having an answer for the D800? It's been out for like
72 hours. Really? I mean, really? Now you're going to whine like the kid who's upset that the
neighbor boy got a new hot wheels toy and you have to wait 'til Christmas? Come on. Ridiculous.
Settle down. Obviously Canon is releasing something soon. Wait to see what the specs are.
And stop worrying about unimportant things like IS on a wide angle, and huge megapixels on a 35mm.

normally I would Ignore a post like this but I'll bite this time, firstly for the most part I agree, MOST Proffessional photographers would not need IS in that focal range for most things they shoot, at a wedding agreed IS dont need it shooting a performance in low light dont need it. However I shoot alot of stuff in operating mine and processing plant enviroments. Now since I dont expect you to have ever shot in this environment but there is a hell of a lot of constant vibration and noise. in so much as you cannot brace yourself against any structure to get better stabilityl because it makes it worse due to the structure vibrating. The Only way is to set a wide stable stance with a slight bend in the knees to soak up some vibrateion tuck you grip of the camera in close to your chest, and to use IS to take the rest of the vibration out. I use the 24-105 f4L IS solely for these shoots I would LOVE to be able to shoot at f2.8 because the environement can often have low, bad or seriously contrasty light granted its a very specific type of shooting condition but one where the only solution to the problem is IS.
So I would suggest that since you are new perhaps you should take the arrogant tone down a little and behave more like the professional you are
And i wasnt being sarcastic I really think that you made the statement because you have never had to shoot in an environment in that focal range where IS is critical and I hope that explanation of a specific shooting condition where IS is critical makes the point that IS is usefull.
as I have said before my dream lens is a 24-105 f2.8L IS but I would have settled for a 24-70 f2.8L IS
I may still get the 24-70 mk2 for wedding use if it lives up to the hype but for that other stuff the trusty old 24-105 is gonna keep its job, plus I dont feel so bad when the relatively cheap 24-105 gets covered in mud and all sorts of stuff

 

[Orion]

. . . as far as IS goes, it is almost worthless on a 24-70. Either just by depth of field alone or the fact that if you are shgooting 1/125 +-, you don't need IS. It is of no consequence. For the amount of professional grade glass and coatings on the new 24-70 (and from 77 to 82), for what it's capable of, the price is not a total surprise too. That is why they may come out with IS on a 24/28mm lense so as to satisfy many. . . but to add IS on an alreaday 2200+ lens seems a professional waste of time and high price.

Imagine what you can do with the 24-70mkII on a 1Dx . . . or a new 5DmkIII. THAT'S where the thoughts should go

 

[lensla]

I've been lurking these forums for months. But I registered just now to tell the OP that he sounds ridiculous.
Seriously. I'm a former Nikon shooter (that still prefers a number of things about Nikons) and you
sound like an impatient, petulant child.

First of all, there isn't a professional on this planet that actually thinks the 24-70 needs IS. In fact,
it's easy to sort out the professionals from amateurs based solely on how they feel about there being
no IS on the 24-70. It's a simple test actually. Do you think that the new lens is overpriced because
it has no IS? Congratulations, you're an amateur/hobbyist photographer. Nothing wrong with that, let's
just not confuse terms here.

If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. A 24-70 focal range lens, especially on a full frame where most
pros will use it, renders IS almost completely useless. Just about every situation (very few) in which IS would
be useful can be covered using proper technique and/or a 100 dollar monopod. Longer focal lengths, sure, IS
makes sense, and is quite useful. But you cannot look at the MTF chart of the newest 24-70, which looks like it
might even blow away some primes in its focal range, and go "oh that's overpriced". It shows your ignorance.
It's a professional lens. A professional tool. The added durability and sealing alone make it worth it for a pro,
they make it back with one or two photo shoots.

And come on. Complaining about Canon not having an answer for the D800? It's been out for like
72 hours. Really? I mean, really? Now you're going to whine like the kid who's upset that the
neighbor boy got a new hot wheels toy and you have to wait 'til Christmas? Come on. Ridiculous.
Settle down. Obviously Canon is releasing something soon. Wait to see what the specs are.
And stop worrying about unimportant things like IS on a wide angle, and huge megapixels on a 35mm.

normally I would Ignore a post like this but I'll bite this time, firstly for the most part I agree, MOST Proffessional photographers would not need IS in that focal range for most things they shoot, at a wedding agreed IS dont need it shooting a performance in low light dont need it. However I shoot alot of stuff in operating mine and processing plant enviroments. Now since I dont expect you to have ever shot in this environment but there is a hell of a lot of constant vibration and noise. in so much as you cannot brace yourself against any structure to get better stabilityl because it makes it worse due to the structure vibrating. The Only way is to set a wide stable stance with a slight bend in the knees to soak up some vibrateion tuck you grip of the camera in close to your chest, and to use IS to take the rest of the vibration out. I use the 24-105 f4L IS solely for these shoots I would LOVE to be able to shoot at f2.8 because the environement can often have low, bad or seriously contrasty light granted its a very specific type of shooting condition but one where the only solution to the problem is IS.
So I would suggest that since you are new perhaps you should take the arrogant tone down a little and behave more like the professional you are
And i wasnt being sarcastic I really think that you made the statement because you have never had to shoot in an environment in that focal range where IS is critical and I hope that explanation of a specific shooting condition where IS is critical makes the point that IS is usefull.
as I have said before my dream lens is a 24-105 f2.8L IS but I would have settled for a 24-70 f2.8L IS
I may still get the 24-70 mk2 for wedding use if it lives up to the hype but for that other stuff the trusty old 24-105 is gonna keep its job, plus I dont feel so bad when the relatively cheap 24-105 gets covered in mud and all sorts of stuff

No, you make a fantastic point. Canon should invest millions of dollars into engineering a lens for the 15 people that shoot under those conditions.

I will say this though, that post was more about frustration than arrogance. The whole backlash against Canon over this lens and no 5D3 (currently) is quite widespread, and based completely in ignorance. Seeing
it over and over again everywhere... and now an entire thread devoted to this stupidity, it's like road rage.
So, if it came off as arrogance, I apologize, only for that. The tone was of frustration, but it does not change
the content of my posting, which is based completely in logic.

 

[thepancakeman]

No, you make a fantastic point. Canon should invest millions of dollars into engineering a lens for the 15 people that shoot under those conditions.

I will say this though, that post was more about frustration than arrogance. The whole backlash against Canon over this lens and no 5D3 (currently) is quite widespread, and based completely in ignorance. Seeing
it over and over again everywhere... and now an entire thread devoted to this stupidity, it's like road rage.
So, if it came off as arrogance, I apologize, only for that. The tone was of frustration, but it does not change
the content of my posting, which is based completely in logic.

And being "based completely in logic" isn't arrogant? Your logic is complete and infallible? I want to be just like you when I get to be 15 too! :-X

Sorry to the rest of you--I seem to have a small/non-existant tolerance today for people who know everything (except of course for Neuro, who actually DOES know everything! ;D )

 

[corntrollio]

love the fact it can crop to 1.5X. Something I would love in a Canon

but i do like the 1.2x crop feature the d800 has..

Why is that a useful feature? So you can buy DX lenses to use on your full frame? I don't understand why it'd be useful to do this in camera vs. in post.

Generally speaking, I don't understand why you'd want to crop that much if you're composing right. For wildlife in some cases? Or maybe if you use wide angle lenses in street photography because you feel less sketchy being "stealth," although I see that as more sketchy.

In any case, it doesn't appear to be a reason to prefer a D800. Just crop like you do now.

 

[AvTvM]

I honestly believe, every single new lens - aside from maybe fisheyes - from a camera manufacturer like Canon (or Nikon) that does not offer in-body stabilization should come out with IS. Even if some or many users may or will never use IS, there are way more situations in which it is useful.

There is not a single rational argument against IS:
* IS adds hardly any weight - e.g. the EF 70-200/4 L with IS is exactly 55grams heavier than the non-IS version
* IS does not add size - e.g. the EF 70-200/4 L IS has exactly the same dimensions as the non-L variant
* IS does not make a lens less sharp or otherwise optically inferior ... e.,g. the EF 70-200 4 L IS is sharper than the non-IS variant
* IS is dirt cheap ... I bet it costs Canon less than 50 $/€ on a non-supertele lens like e.g. the 24-70

I find the 24-70 II at a price tag of € 2299 just ludicrous without IS. ALso, the MTF is worth rather little, as Canon publishes "theoretical/calculated" MTFs ... as opposed to Zeiss who publish "real/measured" MTFs. Furthermore, a major improvement over the rather mediocre 24-70 Mk I was and is absolutely necessary ... so the Mk. II better be really good.

I am however, not going to switch to Nikon (yet), because I am a fairly happy APS-C hobbyist (7D) and love my 17-55 with IS ... which by the way is optically better than the 24-70 L Mk I over the entire overlapping focal range ... "despite" having IS! Nikon has (still) no 17-55 with IS - and that was one of the main reasons I did not switch from my earlier 40D to Nikons D300 but waited for the 7D.

If Nikon brings out a D400 which bests the 7D by the same margin the D800 bests the 5D II ... I will reconsider again.

And, take this Canon fanboys: should I ever switch to FF, I will definitely consider the Tamron 24-70 with VC and USM at probably less than half of the price of a Canon 24-70 without IS - no matter whether my future FF camera will be made by Canon or Nikon.

 

[M.R.Rafsanjani]

Its all about the marketing strategies I think. Not to worry.