 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006Canon 30D
http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=18218 http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos30d/index.html >http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=18218 Oh, hum.... A product improved 20D. Just what we expected. And two pretty much pointless lenses. The product improved 85L is ok but why another EF-S with IS? Where are the lenses Canon needs, high quality ultra wide L's? ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ > And two pretty much pointless lenses. The product improved 85L is ok ...just $700 USD more than the predecessor. > but why another EF-S with IS? The specs sound like what a lot of us have been asking for. Right up to the "EF-S" part. Bleh. > Where are the lenses Canon needs, high quality ultra wide L's? They've got some good ones. I'd like to see a Canon L version of the Sigma 12-24, preferably constant f/2.8. >> And two pretty much pointless lenses. The product improved 85L is ok >...just $700 USD more than the predecessor. >> but why another EF-S with IS? >The specs sound like what a lot of us have been asking for. >Right up to the "EF-S" part. Bleh. >> Where are the lenses Canon needs, high quality ultra wide L's? >They've got some good ones. I'd like to see a Canon L version of the Sigma >12-24, preferably constant f/2.8. Marketing is important. Lenses in the 12-14 range have problems, as you can see by reading the reviews of the existing Canon, Tokina, etc. lenses. Most of those are f/4 or so. Making them f/2.8 magnifies the image problems greatly, makes the lens a fair amount bigger (not necessarily longer, just bigger) and increases its weight. As a result you end up with a very costly lens that is not up to your usual standards. Will such a lens sell enough to make it profitable? It seems to me that THAT is the key question. ----- Paul J. Gans >>> And two pretty much pointless lenses. The product improved 85L is >>> ok [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > bigger (not necessarily longer, just bigger) and increases > its weight. I understand very well, Paul. I've ponied up for a nice glass collection, including a bunch of trial and error misfires - mostly trying to get by on the cheap. > As a result you end up with a very costly lens that is > not up to your usual standards. > > Will such a lens sell enough to make it profitable? <shrug> There's nothing in the range that carries the L zoom price tag. I would think that a nice increase in quality could be done at double the current costs, say $1,400-$1,600USD. I'd like to see them try. > It seems to me that THAT is the key question. I really think the key question is whether Marketing believes it will be profitable. >> Marketing is important. Lenses in the 12-14 range have >> problems, as you can see by reading the reviews of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> bigger (not necessarily longer, just bigger) and increases >> its weight. >I understand very well, Paul. I've ponied up for a nice glass collection, >including a bunch of trial and error misfires - mostly trying to get by >on the cheap. Yeah. I've given that up too. >> As a result you end up with a very costly lens that is >> not up to your usual standards. >> >> Will such a lens sell enough to make it profitable? ><shrug> There's nothing in the range that carries the L zoom price tag. I >would think that a nice increase in quality could be done at double the >current costs, say $1,400-$1,600USD. >I'd like to see them try. So would I. >> It seems to me that THAT is the key question. >I really think the key question is whether Marketing believes it will be >profitable. Same thing. They have to decide this *before* they go into production (or even far along in development.) I'd just keep asking. The word will get back to them. ---- Paul J. Gans >And two pretty much pointless lenses. The product improved 85L is ok >but why another EF-S with IS? The new lens is 17-55IS, to it stands the chance of being much sharper and less distorted than the 17-85IS. It is also f/2.8, enabling shooting handheld in yet lower light. 1/3s at f/2.8 at ISO 1600 sounds intriguing to me.  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>And two pretty much pointless lenses. The product improved 85L is ok >>but why another EF-S with IS? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shooting handheld in yet lower light. 1/3s at f/2.8 at ISO 1600 sounds > intriguing to me. It sounds intriguing to me, too. I'm glad I kept my 20D, this lens may just get added to the mix. A lot of people, both here and on other forums, wished for a 24-70 f2.8L IS, but Canon only gave us FF guys the 24-104 f4L IS, nice, but a stop slow. The 17-55 f2.8 IS in combination with the 20D gives a taste of both worlds, fast lens with IS. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>And two pretty much pointless lenses. The product improved 85L is ok >>but why another EF-S with IS? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >shooting handheld in yet lower light. 1/3s at f/2.8 at ISO 1600 sounds >intriguing to me. That doesn't nothing for Full Frame shooters and is to us pointless. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ : >And two pretty much pointless lenses. The product improved 85L is ok : >but why another EF-S with IS? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : intriguing to me. : ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Where ever you got the notion you could shoot much at f/2.8 and have any usable depth of field could not possibly have been from the real world. Focusing on a nose at f/2.8 will produce an out of focus nose and blurred ears. The situation only gets worse from there on. The only value f/2.8 has is in providing brighter previews. Just the suggestion you can shoot ANY SLR camera at 1/3rd of a second without the mirror being locked up is pretty intriguing to me too. It can't be done and won't ever be possible as long as the mirror has to swing away and back. Even with the mirror up, the vibrations from the shutter itself will have an effect. Or do you use a leaf shutter in a special lens adaptor in your dream of nirvana? >: >And two pretty much pointless lenses. The product improved 85L is ok >: >but why another EF-S with IS? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Where ever you got the notion you could shoot much at f/2.8 and have any >usable depth of field could not possibly have been from the real world. DOF is a function of magnification, at a given f-stop (and recording medium or display resolution, if you take those into account). With a 17mm lens, only things that are very close to the lens will have that paper-thin DOF. >Focusing on a nose at f/2.8 will produce an out of focus nose and blurred >ears. The situation only gets worse from there on. The only value f/2.8 has >is in providing brighter previews. I would agree with 1.2 and 1.4 lenses in general, because their optics are usually poor wide open, but many f/2.8 lenses are good, wide-open. For DOF, again, magnification is a major issue, not f-stop alone. >Just the suggestion you can shoot ANY SLR camera at 1/3rd of a second >without the mirror being locked up is pretty intriguing to me too. It can't >be done and won't ever be possible as long as the mirror has to swing away >and back. Even with the mirror up, the vibrations from the shutter itself >will have an effect. Hand-holdability, all other things being equal, is determined by magnification, just like DOF. That's why you can't hand-hold your 100mm macro at 1:1 at 1/100, but you can at infinity. The "1/fl" or "0.625/fl" (for 1.6x crop sensors) rule of thumb is because of magnification at a distance; not because of focal length per se. >Or do you use a leaf shutter in a special lens adaptor >in your dream of nirvana? No, I use my mouse-trap-sounding 20D, which is more noise than anything, and get shots at 28mm with IS that are reasonably sharp at 1/5, and expect the same for about 1/3 with 17mm and IS. With my "Pod" beanbag, I can go even further. I only carry around full-sized tripods on rare occasion; I find them very restricting most of the time. Another technique I use for long exposures is to hang the camera from my neck, and have two legs from a mini-tripod resting on my chest. I have taken normally-sharp images at night in Manhattan at 1/2 with my 10-22mm Canon, stopped down to f/4.5. The IS will tighten this up as well. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< SNIP > Another technique I use for long exposures is to hang the camera > from my neck, and have two legs from a mini-tripod resting on my > chest. Funny, I do exactly the same (with 2 or 3 legs on my chest) if no better alternatives are present and it helps a lot. Just have to press the shutter between heartbeats ;-) Bart >SNIP >> Another technique I use for long exposures is to hang the camera >> from my neck, and have two legs from a mini-tripod resting on my >> chest. >Funny, I do exactly the same (with 2 or 3 legs on my chest) if no >better alternatives are present and it helps a lot. Just have to press >the shutter between heartbeats ;-) What's your pulse rate? ;-) ----- Paul J. Gans SNIP > What's your pulse rate? ;-) Depends on what/who I'm shooting ... ;-) However, since it's regular, it's predictable and the shutter press can be timed within a fraction of a second. Bart >SNIP >> Another technique I use for long exposures is to hang the camera >> from my neck, and have two legs from a mini-tripod resting on my >> chest. >Funny, I do exactly the same (with 2 or 3 legs on my chest) if no >better alternatives are present and it helps a lot. Just have to press >the shutter between heartbeats ;-) I get some strange stares walking around the big city like that at night! Moreso than when I was wearing both my 20D with a 100-400 and my 10D with a 15-30, on neckstraps. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< SNIP > I get some strange stares walking around the big city like > that at night! Must be a cultural thing. All I get are requests to take a picture (for free of course, typically Dutch) ;-) Carrying a monopod seems to help and intimidate potential muggers ..., and is also useful for photography! Bart > Where ever you got the notion you could shoot much at f/2.8 and have any > usable depth of field could not possibly have been from the real world. > Focusing on a nose at f/2.8 will produce an out of focus nose and blurred > ears. The situation only gets worse from there on. The only value f/2.8 has > is in providing brighter previews. But we already know you know little about photography. A large portion of my pictures are done at apertures *wider* than f/2.8, and yet somehow they manage to be in focus. Sometimes you don't want depth of field. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com : > Where ever you got the notion you could shoot much at f/2.8 and have any : > usable depth of field could not possibly have been from the real world. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : : Sometimes you don't want depth of field. Nothing has changed. Disagree with a Canadian and he piles sh.t on you. When you actually have something constructive to say, no one will be bothered to listen because troll like you all end up in kill files.. Get a life Nixon. > Nothing has changed. Disagree with a Canadian and he piles sh.t on you. I haven't had that experience with Canadians, any more than anyone else. What I'm wondering is what it has to do with me; I've never even *been* to Canada. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > : > Where ever you got the notion you could shoot much at f/2.8 and have any > : > usable depth of field could not possibly have been from the real world. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Nothing has changed. Disagree with a Canadian and he << Snipped bits out >> What's changed is the subject, which was DoF. I often shoot wide open because I want short DoF or need the light. With what lens, focal length, and at what distance, do you get such compression of the depth of field? SignatureJohn McWilliams >> : > Where ever you got the notion you could shoot much at f/2.8 and >> have any [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> f/2.8 has >> : > is in providing brighter previews. << Snipped bits out >> >> Nothing has changed. Disagree with a Canadian and he << Snipped bits >> out >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > compression of the depth of field? >? ? the autofocus system benefits from a 2.8 lens. It will inevitably mean a brighter viewfinder too. > : >And two pretty much pointless lenses. The product improved 85L is ok > : >but why another EF-S with IS? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > adaptor > in your dream of nirvana? > Where ever you got the notion you could shoot much at f/2.8 and have any > usable depth of field could not possibly have been from the real world. > Focusing on a nose at f/2.8 will produce an out of focus nose and blurred > ears. The situation only gets worse from there on. The only value f/2.8 > has > is in providing brighter previews. Douglas, you presume that the hypothetical photographer is standing close to his subject. More distance from the subject results in the circle expanding. See this chart: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_24~70_28l_usm_dof.html SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=18218 I can just imagine the e-bay sales for 30D's and people receiving D30's! Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=18218 > > I can just imagine the e-bay sales for 30D's and people receiving D30's! Courtesy of the same company that brought you multiple models of the F-1. Maybe they should have named this one "F-1" as it seems to be a favorite name of theirs. Looks like a nice camera. Canon appears to have announced quite large line-up, as usual. They win once more in the shelf space wars. :-) Does this new camera have the lockup problems or banding issues? > Looks like a nice camera. Canon appears to have announced quite large > line-up, as usual. They win once more in the shelf space wars. :-) >Does this new camera have the lockup problems or banding issues? How would anyone but Canon and a handful of pre-production users know about lock-ups? There is banding in at least one of Canon's sample images; the sample images were apparently picked by someone who has no clue about technological issues; nice pictures, with bad lens copies (the 10-22mm at f/6.3 is much softer at the edges than my copy is at f/3.5) and under-exposure. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.