1D Mark IV Ship Date
I've heard December 9, 2009 is when the first batch of 1D Mark IV's will be in the wild. No word on what country(ies) that would be.
G11 vs S90
Canon has been pleasantly surprised by the initial orders for the S90. Originally the camera was pegged to be outsold by the G11 6 to 1, their internal numbers have changed to 3 or 4 to 1.
Micro 4/3
Canon is watching how things go with the new system. Currently there are no plans within Canon to start R&D on a Micro 4/3 body or anything similar. There is also no plans for a third lens system at this time. EF-S is still a confusing thing for consumers. This is no lie, Canon still gets flack for the FD to EF change which happened 22 years ago!
24-70 f/2.8L IS
A great source has said this lens is coming in 2010.
Initial 1D Mark IV Orders
Orders for the 1D Mark IV have been beyond expectations for Canon. They do expect to meet the demand of initial orders.
24 f/1.4L II
This is still a hard lens to come by in a lot of places. I'm told Canon is working on having the supply issue sorted by the start of 2010.
cr
118 Comments
1. A FF camera will have a shallower DOF than a crop cam, so the edges will seem soft (if they aren’t in the same plane as the focal point.
2. A crop cam takes the centre area only (sharper and easier to get edge to edge sharpness).
3. I actually OWN the 16-36II and the 5DII (not just testing it) and I find the corner to corner sharpness to be very good. 5.6 and up. At f/2.8 on a FF at 16mm I don’t expect the edges to be perfect, but they are pretty darn good IMHO.
4. If you need to make a crop, why are you worried about edge sharpness?
5. Don’t tell me you can’t use it at 100%, that’s nonsense (unless you love to pixel peep like crazy) there may be a little softness if you’re wide open, but if you’re any good it should be fine.
Most people overemphasize the edge softness on the 16-35 but in reality is isn’t as bad as 90% of the people make it out to be. In fact when I went to get mine I was super surprised how GOOD it was, I was expecting a totally crappy lens in the corners, but in reality it puts the 10-22 (EF-S) to shame.
I think people love to bash the 16-35 so much, but mostly it is ill thought out nonsense, or regurgitation of things others have said. It may be a little softer than the Nikon 14-24 (which can’t use filters easily).
I have also tried the 14-24 on a D3. It is very good and sharp in the corners, but the 16-35 is only slightly soft in the corners and it really isn’t as bad (again) as people make it out to be.
All that said, I’d still buy a CANON 14-24 if it were like the Nikon one. I’d also keep my 16-35 because it’s a more practical length most of the time (and I really love that lens as you can tell).
It wouldn’t at all surprise me if it was deliberately ambiguous…
I knew the S90 was awesome… gotta get my hands on one someday…
Michal,
you are arguing over your own misunderstanding of what I wrote.
no one is saying they are exactly the same lenses, so for you to say I’m saying that and then call it wrong and incorrect is just stupid on your part.
stop making such a narrow use of the definition of equivalent, you are splitting hairs no one cares about, and arguing with your own misunderstandings. The only reason I’m responding to your nonsense is to say I’m not saying what you are inferring from my words.
Try to comprehend this: my comment is LIMITED to my responding to the idea that EF-S lenses are more expensive than some EF lenses. If you take my comments beyond my responding to that, you will, and are, concluding something incorrect from my words.
If you can not see how EF-S 60mm is 96mm equivalent on an EF lens and UNDERSTAND that does not mean they are exactly the same in every way, then you need to take some English comprehension classes or have a martini or something.
Michal, you claim that:
“Equivalent focal length does not mean that a lens designed for a smaller sensor can be compared directly to a lens designed for a FF one.”
acc. to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary:
equivalent – equal in value, amount, meaning, importance, etc.
You can compare exactly or roughly anything if you define at the beginning what quality you want to compare and optionally how accurately. The word ‘directly’ in this context is confusing even in meaning ‘exact’. So in my opinion David is right. Nevertheless I don’t consider this argument being useless. For example I can compare you and David in respect of the culture of speaking. One of you has probably some problem with testosterone level.