New Lens Information for Photokina

[Lee Jay]

Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff?

You say a lot of dumb things. I have over 50,000 shots on my 5D, which I purchased at release.

I have talked with owners that love their 400/4DO. Not so much the 70-300.

And you are my equal.

For all your 10,000's of shots you still couldn't post two images to illustrate your belief and assertions.

Yes, I did. Since you're memory seems to be failing you, here it is:

And, if you prefer to see them at native (but different) sizes, here's that one too:

 

[c.d.embrey]

Canon already has an EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM. Full Frame lens.

Canon already has an EF-M 22mm f/2 STM in the M mirrorless mount.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make an EF-S 22mm f/2 STM ???

BTW 24mm = 38.4 FF and 22mm = 35.2 FF, so why a 24mm for an APS-C camera ???

 

[privatebydesign]

Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff?

You say a lot of dumb things. I have over 50,000 shots on my 5D, which I purchased at release.

I have talked with owners that love their 400/4DO. Not so much the 70-300.

And you are my equal.

For all your 10,000's of shots you still couldn't post two images to illustrate your belief and assertions.

Yes, I did. Since you're memory seems to be failing you, here it is:

And, if you prefer to see them at native (but different) sizes, here's that one too:

No you didn't, the request was for comparisons between a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/6D/1DX handheld with AF.

So apart from neither camera being in the list and it being tripod mounted you nailed it.

 

[Loswr]

At birding spots I frequent, I see lots of big black lenses, even more big white ones with red rings, and one with a green ring. The guy using the 400 DO loves it...because of the combination of long focal length, fast aperture (for 400mm), and a size/weight that his arthritic hands can manage. For him, the last is the most important criterion, aperture second. He has a 100-400L too, and uses that during flare ups – he feels the main advantage of the 400/4 is the aperture, and that the IQ isn't much better with the DO. Of course, that's totally anecdotal.

Still, it will be interesting to see what Canon can do with a MkII version.

 

[Lee Jay]

No you didn't, the request was for comparisons between a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/6D/1DX handheld with AF.

I don't care about your request (which changes every time), I care about a controlled test demonstrating the point. And I provided that.

 

[privatebydesign]

No you didn't, the request was for comparisons between a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/6D/1DX handheld with AF.

I don't care about your request (which changes every time), I care about a controlled test demonstrating the point. And I provided that.

Well you did care enough to argue the point, and you failed.

My request hasn't changed, I just broadened it to include more cameras to make it easier. Here is the original request:

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage.

If by showing tripod mounted shots from a 20D and a 5D you think you have demonstrated the 7D's resolution advantage when hand held you have a different understanding of Engish than I do, or, to quote you, "Idiot".

Here is the link and the quote in context.

date=1409191281]

Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?

Not me, I never had any interest in the 7D after basic testing showed it was no better than my current FF cropped.

If you aren't getting more real resolution with a 7D than with a Canon full-frame, then you have problems elsewhere - lenses, focus, motion blur, etc.

If you are getting visibly more resolution from your 7D than a FF cropped then you are not using 1 series AF, 300 f2.8 IS's etc, you are also only using your crop camera on a tripod with live view MF in good light with nice contrast and at base iso at an optimal aperture. Anything less and the differences are just not there, I looked for them, hard, years ago.

No? What about only every test out there?

7D has quite noticeably more reach than a 5D3 or 5D2. And I say that as someone who sold my 7D so I'm not some 7D owner making up justifications.

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

 

[jasonsim]

It makes lots of sense that they come out with a new 400mm DO, since the first one that still sells MSRP for $6500 cannot be kept in stock anywhere; it flies off the shelves!

At the price they wanted for the 400 DO, another $500 got you a new 500mm f/4L IS USM. It made no sense then, and little now. The 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM with 1.4x III and 2x III will best it for less money.

Canon really needed a 400mm f/5.6L IS USM!

How dumb!

 

[Lee Jay]

No you didn't, the request was for comparisons between a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/6D/1DX handheld with AF.

I don't care about your request (which changes every time), I care about a controlled test demonstrating the point. And I provided that.

Well you did care enough to argue the point, and you failed.

My request hasn't changed, I just broadened it to include more cameras to make it easier. Here is the original request:

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage.

If by showing tripod mounted shots from a 20D and a 5D you think you have demonstrated the 7D's resolution advantage when hand held you have a different understanding of Engish than I do, or, to quote you, "Idiot".

I demonstrated it with a controlled test, not an uncontrolled one. It's not my fault you don't have the skills to extract full resolution from your systems in real-world shooting.

 

[helpful]

Yes, please, the 400mm DO version II is what I've been praying for for years and years!!!

If it's as sharp at 4.0 as the other premium new Canon lenses, a lightweight 400mm f/4.0 would be my dream come true. As good as it is, a 400mm f/2.8 is too heavy to run around with 12 hours a day. Busy events have too many people in the way just to sit there with a heavy lens on a tripod, so I desperately want this rumor to be true.

This is my number one desired lens in this focal length.

 

[SoullessPolack]

If by showing tripod mounted shots from a 20D and a 5D you think you have demonstrated the 7D's resolution advantage when hand held you have a different understanding of Engish than I do, or, to quote you...

I gotta jump in here. Your request would be completely pointless. I have to ask:
-What is the purpose for you wanting a handheld test?

If you do a handheld test, you're going to get variability with each shot due to the simple nature of human physiology. Do you choose one random shot? Do you take 30 shots and pick the best? How does it work? That's why actual testing is done with tripods. See for how many tests Bryan over at the-digital-picture.com has used a camera hand held (hint: it's zero) .

Using a tripod eliminates the variability of shake or movement. Alternatively, you could shoot with a fast enough shutter speed to eliminate shake or movement, but at that point, it's the exact same as if you placed it on a tripod anyway.

So in closing, I'd like you to answer a question. What is the reason for wanting these shots handheld? What advantage do you believe lies in such a poor testing methodology?

 

[Loswr]

I gotta jump in here. Your request would be completely pointless. I have to ask:
-What is the purpose for you wanting a handheld test?

It's always nice to meet people for whom the theoretical best possible results are practically, routinely achieved. From your question, I assume 100% of your shots are taken from the sturdiest possible tripod.

My auto manufacturer put a sticker on my car that said it achieves 26 mpg highway. Our road trip average is closer to 20 mpg. Our other car is rated for 36 mpg highway, and delivers ~34 mpg. Same EPA-mandated rating system, same driver, both cars maintained per recommendations, etc. Yet the real-world vs. spec'd performance differential is different.

The issue is the claim that smaller pixels deliver higher resolution that is predicted by the difference in pixel sizes. The point is that in real world use, smaller pixels don't deliver as differentially higher resolution as pixel size alone would predict.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

"There is no 100-400 replacement"

100-400 II - more mythical than the Octopus in Goonies and the Abominable Unicorn Sasquatch

 

[Woody]

I am most curious about the 1" sensor camera from Canon. The Sony RX100 has an awesome sensor. Now we'll know if Canon has the capability to produce a camera with the same performance.

 

[privatebydesign]

So in closing, I'd like you to answer a question. What is the reason for wanting these shots handheld? What advantage do you believe lies in such a poor testing methodology?

I believe there is a fundamental disconnect between what people are told they will be able to achieve, and what they actually will achieve in day to day use. I think tech heads argue about every single electron a pixel is capable of recording and that is so far removed from the practical aspects of how we use our cameras that much of the raw data we get from tests, analysis, over thinking and opinions is not only not helpful, it has now become counter productive.

We, here, are generally enthusiasts, but it is frightening how so many of even us have no core understanding of photography basics and have swallowed hook line and sinker every morsel of garbage that comes out of our personal favourite posters mouth wrapped in some equation and well balanced argument that seems to make sense.

The reason for my challenge is to illustrate how far removed from actual day to day camera use these bench tests are. I don't want or need to post the results, whatever I post will be argued over as irrelevant or flawed anyway, even if it is how I would actually use both cameras! I already did the tests for myself years ago, I want everybody who can to borrow a camera to do the tests for themselves to see how much difference it makes to not use perfect technique, because that is the shooting situation most of us find ourselves in most of the time.

I have a very heavy tripod, it leaves the studio about six times a year, how many wildlife and landscape photographers shoot at midday when they have the "best" light and contrast, how many bird shooters do BIF with a tripod, how many of us use manual focus all the time, or a remote release, ever take your camera off base iso, shoot outside your lenses optimal aperture, use IS, push shutter speed, fail to optimally expose?

All these factors will impact IQ, often good IS will give you sharper images than more pixels, who ever says that? How important is information like that to an enthusiast who is just looking to get help on a purchase? Many of us have the knowledge to truly help those people, but our hands on experience s constantly questioned and belittled by people with more time, typing skills, and equations.

A 7D and 300 f4 might resolve more detail than their cropped 5D MkIII on a test bench, for years people were saying you'd get 60% more "reach", now the consensus is down to a more reasonable 20% (which IMHO is still way too high), but what will you actually achieve when you are trying to take pictures of your kid playing soccer? I would argue that rather than advise the person to buy a crop camera for the "additional reach" they would actually get very similar results by simply cropping, after all nobody on soccer sidelines is shooting with "perfect technique", or don't get the 7D, get a 1.4 TC or the 400 f5.6, but no, for years the 1.6 "crop factor", that magical "60% more reach" meme has ruled the roost.

That is the point of the "challenge" to separate fact, actual results, from the fiction we are too often sold.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So in closing, I'd like you to answer a question. What is the reason for wanting these shots handheld? What advantage do you believe lies in such a poor testing methodology?

I believe there is a fundamental disconnect between what people are told they will be able to achieve, and what they actually will achieve in day to day use. I think tech heads argue about every single electron a pixel is capable of recording and that is so far removed from the practical aspects of how we use our cameras that much of the raw data we get from tests, analysis, over thinking and opinions is not only not helpful, it has now become counter productive.

We, here, are generally enthusiasts, but it is frightening how so many of even us have no core understanding of photography basics and have swallowed hook line and sinker every morsel of garbage that comes out of our personal favourite posters mouth wrapped in some equation and well balanced argument that seems to make sense.

The reason for my challenge is to illustrate how far removed from actual day to day camera use these bench tests are. I don't want or need to post the results, whatever I post will be argued over as irrelevant or flawed anyway, even if it is how I would actually use both cameras! I already did the tests for myself years ago, I want everybody who can to borrow a camera to do the tests for themselves to see how much difference it makes to not use perfect technique, because that is the shooting situation most of us find ourselves in most of the time.

I have a very heavy tripod, it leaves the studio about six times a year, how many wildlife and landscape photographers shoot at midday when they have the "best" light and contrast, how many bird shooters do BIF with a tripod, how many of us use manual focus all the time, or a remote release, ever take your camera off base iso, shoot outside your lenses optimal aperture, use IS, push shutter speed, fail to optimally expose?

All these factors will impact IQ, often good IS will give you sharper images than more pixels, who ever says that? How important is information like that to an enthusiast who is just looking to get help on a purchase? Many of us have the knowledge to truly help those people, but our hands on experience s constantly questioned and belittled by people with more time, typing skills, and equations.

A 7D and 300 f4 might resolve more detail than their cropped 5D MkIII on a test bench, for years people were saying you'd get 60% more "reach", now the consensus is down to a more reasonable 20% (which IMHO is still way too high), but what will you actually achieve when you are trying to take pictures of your kid playing soccer? I would argue that rather than advise the person to buy a crop camera for the "additional reach" they would actually get very similar results by simply cropping, after all nobody on soccer sidelines is shooting with "perfect technique", or don't get the 7D, get a 1.4 TC or the 400 f5.6, but no, for years the 1.6 "crop factor", that magical "60% more reach" meme has ruled the roost.

That is the point of the "challenge" to separate fact, actual results, from the fiction we are too often sold.

blah blah blah

i have such real world tests, but too upset and depressed at the moment to dig them up now since the new people cut down the old growth oak I took them on

but ROmy has already posted many real world comps between 7D and 5D series and he surely got more detail out the 7D

maybe if you actually were the amazing, ultimate, real world, non-'lab nerd' you'd actually be able to get decent results out of your equipment in something less than lab conditions, no?

some of the 'lab only, numbers, nonsense guys' that post here also have real world portfolios ten times the size and many of the mockers and serious artistes and ultra-pros.

 

[privatebydesign]

blah blah blah

but ROmy has already posted many real world comps between 7D and 5D series and he surely got more detail out the 7D

So he has, thanks for that, that really put me in my place, thanks for pointing those real world 7D and cropped 5D MkIII images, I hadn't seen them before.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=352724

 

[Steve]

At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.

Besides I don't want Canon focusing on a lens they make a loss on, and there is no way they have ever made a cent from any DO lens, I want them to make lenses they make profits on then they will have more R&D money and will make even better stuff.

FYI: You're an Idiot

And just so we're clear, that's Arthur Morris - the most famous bird/wildlife photographer in the english speaking world - calling you an idiot, not me. Just so you know. Also, Canon knows their own business better than you ever will and you have literally no stake whatsoever in whether they want to pursue this technology (or not! its still a rumor!) so I can't even begin to imagine why you would be taking the possibility of a new 400mm f4 DO as some sort of personal affront.

 

[dolina]

Hand held test are largely pointless. Each person has their own fitness and strength level.

 

[privatebydesign]

Hand held test are largely pointless. Each person has their own fitness and strength level.

Only if you never hand hold. If you do hand hold, ever, the test will show you what you will get, that is the point!

I am not asking anybody to do a hand hold test for me, I am suggesting they do it for themselves and put the "reach advantage" myth to death once and for all.

 

[privatebydesign]

At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.

Besides I don't want Canon focusing on a lens they make a loss on, and there is no way they have ever made a cent from any DO lens, I want them to make lenses they make profits on then they will have more R&D money and will make even better stuff.

FYI: You're an Idiot

And just so we're clear, that's Arthur Morris - the most famous bird/wildlife photographer in the english speaking world - calling you an idiot, not me. Just so you know. Also, Canon knows their own business better than you ever will and you have literally no stake whatsoever in whether they want to pursue this technology (or not! its still a rumor!) so I can't even begin to imagine why you would be taking the possibility of a new 400mm f4 DO as some sort of personal affront.

Thanks Steve.

One question, when did I ever say the 400 DO wasn't sharp or took TC's well? Because it reads to me like he is calling people that say those things idiots, and his images prove they are.

What he doesn't show you is stuff like this that demonstrates what DO do to bokeh and how they handle specular highlights, you might have noticed not one of Mr Morris' images has any specular highlights, did you wonder why? No, of course you didn't, you are too obtuse to do that.

If you are happy to pay $6,500 for a lens that does that then I suspect you are the idiot, after buying them for that much many owners are happy to sell them for $3,500 to get rid of them, maybe they are the idiots.

I tried one for a day, I am happy I didn't get one and I don't feel like an idiot....

P.S. Don't let Franz Lanting hear you say that about Arthur Morris.