 |
 | 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 / April 2007Canon 5D & 30D
Are there any plans to replace these 2 models in the near future? Sorry, I haven't been on here until recently so if the topic has already been covered - apologies! > Are there any plans to replace these 2 models in the near future? > > Sorry, I haven't been on here until recently so if the topic has already > been covered - apologies! Having the question come up is far better than the usual drivel. But, FYI, there is groups.google.com to see what has been discussed before...  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. >Are there any plans to replace these 2 models in the near future? > >Sorry, I haven't been on here until recently so if the topic has already >been covered - apologies! Define "near future". If you mean in the next few months, no. If you mean in the next two years, undoubtedly. Canon is very good at keeping their plans secret, so that's about the best that can be done. SignatureAl Gore testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee Wednesday. He brought with him five hundred thousand postcards demanding real action on global warming, all crammed inside in a huge duffel bag. Only his old boss got more in the sack. > Are there any plans to replace these 2 models in the near future? > > Sorry, I haven't been on here until recently so if the topic has already > been covered - apologies! With Nikon's sealed D200 around, you can bet Canon is working on a D40 or some other midrange model. Especially after that widely reported fiasco in the Antarctic. > > Are there any plans to replace these 2 models in the near future? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > or some other midrange model. > Especially after that widely reported fiasco in the Antarctic. It's funny how the tables have turned regarding Nikon and Canon. Nikon owned the photography market for decades, then Canon took the lead, and now Nikon is back in command. Nikon has the best product line of bodies less than $2,800 and thats where the most revenues come from. You wouldn't have seen this happening two years ago. > It's funny how the tables have turned regarding Nikon and Canon. Nikon > owned the photography market for decades, then Canon took the lead, > and now Nikon is back in command. Nikon has the best product line of > bodies less than $2,800 and thats where the most revenues come from. > You wouldn't have seen this happening two years ago. And all that will change in a month when Canon's Mk III and 16-35/2.8 II hit the streets. I'm finding a lot of loyal Nikon shooters selling off their stuff just for this event. If that new 16-35/2.8 pans out for Canon and it is even remotely usable it will be all over for Nikon. Rita Thanks to all who replied! Bill >> It's funny how the tables have turned regarding Nikon and Canon. Nikon >> owned the photography market for decades, then Canon took the lead, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Rita >> It's funny how the tables have turned regarding Nikon and Canon. Nikon >> owned the photography market for decades, then Canon took the lead, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >stuff just for this event. If that new 16-35/2.8 pans out for Canon and it >is even remotely usable it will be all over for Nikon. It is ridiculous to suggest that it could be over for Nikon (or Canon, for that matter). Regardless of your stripes, we all need both of these companies. The rivalry between Nikon and Canon over the years has greatly advanced camera and lens technology to the benefit of all serious photographers. KS >>> It's funny how the tables have turned regarding Nikon and Canon. Nikon >>> owned the photography market for decades, then Canon took the lead, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > has greatly advanced camera and lens technology to the benefit of all > serious photographers. To suggest that either company is in "command" is also over the top, and we're used to Rita's constant hyperbole. My hope is that at least one other company will be a major player, and the minor players won't leave the scene. Then we photographers benefit. SignatureJohn McWilliams >> And all that will change in a month when Canon's Mk III and >> 16-35/2.8 II hit the streets. I'm finding a lot of loyal Nikon [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > has greatly advanced camera and lens technology to the benefit of all > serious photographers. It's starting to look that way. Nikon is shooting themselves in the foot by flooding us with consumer grade DX trash. I'm a loyal Nikon shooter with many thousands of dollars in Nikkors, but I already got my foot in Canon's door and will fully cross the threshold if I don't see anything that shocks and awes me from Nikon within a year. And if Canon's new 16-35/2.8 II works out I won't have to be pissing around with my 17-35/2.8 Nikkor and an adapter. Rita Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> It's funny how the tables have turned regarding Nikon and Canon. Nikon >> owned the photography market for decades, then Canon took the lead, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stuff just for this event. If that new 16-35/2.8 pans out for Canon and it > is even remotely usable it will be all over for Nikon. Yeah .. yet another crop format 1.3x APS-H. I love it ... NOT. Other than that, the camera looks very impressive indeed. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yeah .. yet another crop format 1.3x APS-H. I love it ... NOT. > Other than that, the camera looks very impressive indeed. Apparently you're not very familiar with the 1D line. It has had a 1.3x sensor for years...so this is NOT "yet another crop format." SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: >> Yeah .. yet another crop format 1.3x APS-H. I love it ... NOT. >> Other than that, the camera looks very impressive indeed. > > Apparently you're not very familiar with the 1D line. It has had a 1.3x > sensor for years...so this is NOT "yet another crop format." No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were full-frame 35mm sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically for 1.3x multipliers? SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were full-frame 35mm > sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically for 1.3x multipliers? No, they do not. Why would they? The format isn't different enough from 35mm for the weight and size savings to be significant enough to make up for the added costs they would incur. SignatureNo one can feel as helpless as the owner of a sick goldfish. >> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were full-frame 35mm >> sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically for 1.3x multipliers? > > No, they do not. Why would they? The format isn't different enough > from 35mm for the weight and size savings to be significant enough to > make up for the added costs they would incur. That is sort of a silly thing to say. It is closer to APS-C (1.5x crop) than it is to 35mm format. Even so, it will noticably affect wide-angle ability when using lenses designed for 35mm focus areas. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were full-frame 35mm >>> sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically for 1.3x multipliers? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it is to 35mm format. Even so, it will noticably affect wide-angle ability > when using lenses designed for 35mm focus areas. That is sort of a silly thing to say. My comment was about Canon's motivation to produce a new lens lineup for this sensor size, which your reply says nothing about. Nitpick: Canon's EF-S lenses are designed for sensors with a 1.6x crop facto, not 1.5. SignatureDear Lord: Please make my words sweet and tender, for tomorrow I may have to eat them. > That is sort of a silly thing to say. My comment was about Canon's > motivation to produce a new lens lineup for this sensor size, which > your reply says nothing about. Nitpick: Canon's EF-S lenses are > designed for sensors with a 1.6x crop facto, not 1.5. Of course they are ... I said absolutely NOTHING about Canon's EFS lenses. My comment is 100% aimed at the allegation that 1.3x is close enough to 35mm as to be irrelavent. APS-H is just another format that is not needed [in my opinion]. Certainly, it limits the number of adopters [wide angle options must be a bear ... so I suppose sports photographers get the most advantage from these cameras]. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> That is sort of a silly thing to say. My comment was about Canon's >> motivation to produce a new lens lineup for this sensor size, which [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > comment is 100% aimed at the allegation that 1.3x is close enough to 35mm as > to be irrelavent. Please work on your reading comprehension; that's not what I said. Signature"I suppose if we couldn't laugh at things that don't make sense, we couldn't react to a lot of life." -Hobbes >> comment is 100% aimed at the allegation that 1.3x is close enough to 35mm as >> to be irrelavent. > > Please work on your reading comprehension; that's not what I said. I comprehended your post just fine: "No, they do not. Why would they? The format isn't different enough from 35mm for the weight and size savings to be significant enough to make up for the added costs they would incur." The answer to "why would they" is the same answer as to why they should bother with DX lenses on Nikon or EFS lenses on Canon ... wide angle coverage. Size and weight savings on APS-C directed lenses are only useful in wide to normal focal lengths anyway, so the savings there is not even that huge. The driving reason has been wide angle with APS-C sensors and I don't see how that differs for 1.3x crop other than severity. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>> comment is 100% aimed at the allegation that 1.3x is close enough >>> to 35mm as to be irrelavent. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > with APS-C sensors and I don't see how that differs for 1.3x crop > other than severity. It has little to do with the lens size or weight. It has everything to do with the die yield on the sensor in the semiconductor fabrication labs. For APS-C, the sensor area is 328.56mm^2. For full frame, the sensor area is 864mm^2. Do a bit of algebra. It's easy to see that you get 2.70X (not 1.6X) the number of sensors for a die of the same size, not counting interdie spaces, etc. This increases yield and lowers cost. A Digital Rebel wouldn't cost $500 if the sensors were full frame and expensive. The cost-benefit also includes making the camera and lenses smaller and lighter. But it still wasn't the primary objective. Now that I mention that, I'm surprised that they don't bin their sensors based on their light sensitivity, etc. Then they could charge a premium for the better ones. SignaturePhil >>> That is sort of a silly thing to say. My comment was about >>> Canon's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Please work on your reading comprehension; that's not what I said. Pay no attention to "T.T." He's always cranky when he comes out of hibernation and opens his yap without being fully awake. SignatureFrank ess "Take that child tee-tee!" —Bill Cosby spectator routine ~1967 >>That is sort of a silly thing to say. My comment was about Canon's >>motivation to produce a new lens lineup for this sensor size, which [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > must be a bear ... so I suppose sports photographers get the most advantage > from these cameras]. It is a sports/wildlife fast/long camera, not a portrait/studio/landscape wide/bright camera. >> Of course they are ... I said absolutely NOTHING about Canon's EFS lenses. My >> comment is 100% aimed at the allegation that 1.3x is close enough to 35mm as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is a sports/wildlife fast/long camera, not a > portrait/studio/landscape wide/bright camera. Obviously, since you can't get any wide glass for it. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>> Of course they are ... I said absolutely NOTHING about Canon's EFS >>> lenses. My [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Obviously, since you can't get any wide glass for it. Well, Thomas, a 14mm is wider on it than on a 30D, and faster than a 10-22, now isn't it? SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Well, Thomas, a 14mm is wider on it than on a 30D, and faster than a 10-22, > now isn't it? If you own a 14mm to get 14mm [as viewed on a 35mm frame], then you will be disappointed on your 1.3x. What lens would you use to get the equivalent on a 1.3x sensor? That IS the point of the DX/EF-S lenses; because there is no such option for APS-H (1.3x), one loses the widest ability. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> Well, Thomas, a 14mm is wider on it than on a 30D, and faster than a >> 10-22, now isn't it? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1.3x sensor? That IS the point of the DX/EF-S lenses; because there > is no such option for APS-H (1.3x), one loses the widest ability. WTF _cares_? Look, if you don't want one don't buy one, but this incessant _whining_ about something that you don't own and don't want to own is just childish. It's not a mass-market product, it's a niche camera for a fairly large niche and if you don't fit into that niche then it's not the camera for you. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > WTF _cares_? If you aren't interested in the discussion then don't f.cking read it. Be a man and swear .. acronyms don't protect you from sin. > Look, if you don't want one don't buy one, but this incessant _whining_ > about something that you don't own and don't want to own is just > childish. It's not a mass-market product, it's a niche camera for a > fairly large niche and if you don't fit into that niche then it's not > the camera for you. DON'T READ IT. IT IS ON SUBJECT. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> WTF _cares_? > >If you aren't interested in the discussion then don't f.cking read it. Be a >man and swear .. acronyms don't protect you from sin. Good one.. LOL KS >>Well, Thomas, a 14mm is wider on it than on a 30D, and faster than a 10-22, >>now isn't it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1.3x sensor? That IS the point of the DX/EF-S lenses; because there is no > such option for APS-H (1.3x), one loses the widest ability. If 14mm shooting is important, you wouldn't get that camera. It's a special purpose camera. If 600mm shooting is important, you probably wouldn't get a 5D. > If 14mm shooting is important, you wouldn't get that camera. It's a > special purpose camera. If 600mm shooting is important, you probably > wouldn't get a 5D. I agree with that. The camera doesn't appear marketed as such. In any event, this originated because I "thought" that the 1.3x APS-H was a new format; it isn't, but it is an isolated and unique format. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> If 14mm shooting is important, you wouldn't get that camera. It's a >> special purpose camera. If 600mm shooting is important, you probably [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this originated because I "thought" that the 1.3x APS-H was a new format; it > isn't, but it is an isolated and unique format. Yeah right. So isolated that Canon has produced the new upgraded 1DMKlll camera with its 1.3x size sensor to replace the 1.3x size sensor previous models. At two local camera stores there's waiting lists for the camera. If I didn't have my 1DMKll, my name would be on one of those waiting lists. > Yeah right. So isolated that Canon has produced the new upgraded > 1DMKlll camera with its 1.3x size sensor to replace the 1.3x size > sensor previous models. At two local camera stores there's waiting > lists for the camera. If I didn't have my 1DMKll, my name would be on > one of those waiting lists. Of all the digital SLRs on the market [from all manufacturers], what percentage of them are 1.3x crop factor? The answer to that question can be extremely imprecise and yet it is easily anticipated that the number will be low enough to easily draw the conclusion that the 1.3x APS-H sensor is an isolated and unique format; very much a niche. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> Yeah right. So isolated that Canon has produced the new upgraded >> 1DMKlll camera with its 1.3x size sensor to replace the 1.3x size [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the conclusion that the 1.3x APS-H sensor is an isolated and unique > format; very much a niche. Ferrari. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: >> The answer to that question can be extremely imprecise and yet it is >> easily anticipated that the number will be low enough to easily draw >> the conclusion that the 1.3x APS-H sensor is an isolated and unique >> format; very much a niche. > > Ferrari. Agreed ... I wouldn't pass up that camera, were it given to me. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> Well, Thomas, a 14mm is wider on it than on a 30D, and faster than a >> 10-22, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 1.3x sensor? That IS the point of the DX/EF-S lenses; because there is no > such option for APS-H (1.3x), one loses the widest ability. I would only be disappointed if I expected to get the same thing on a mkIII as on my 5D, which I don't. What do you use to get the equivalent of a 14mm f2.8 on a 1.6x? You're missing my point, probably by intent. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>> Well, Thomas, a 14mm is wider on it than on a 30D, and faster than a >>> 10-22, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > equivalent of a 14mm f2.8 on a 1.6x? You're missing my point, > probably by intent. I suspect that even if he DOES get your point, he'll make sure he doesn't admit it. He's clearly intent on maintaining his tunnel-vision (perhaps induced by the 1.6 crop-factor?) and determined to try and belittle the cameras he wishes he could have. I similarly suspect that when he sees some guy drive by in his dream car...he immediately starts thinking negative thoughts about its driver, and perhaps even makes a comment under his breath about him...when all along he's thinking to himself, "Dang! I want one of those!" Some guys have a very hard time with people who enjoy something they can't likewise have. I say... If you can afford that Porsche (I can't), then have a ball! My dream car was always a Land Cruiser. Now that I have one, some people act as thought that means I'm wealthy or something. What's funny is that I bought it when it was three years old, and saved about $30K off of new. Meanwhile...my brother just bought a mini-van...and paid $3K MORE than I paid for my Land Cruiser. New mini-van...3-year-old Land Cruiser... Hmmm... Which would you choose? It all comes down to what you need...want...and will enjoy owning. I'm driving my dream car that would have cost $60K new...yet my brother paid *more* for his mini-van. :) Back to cameras: Which is the greater waste? -I considered the 20 or 30D for the extra FPS and a complement to my 5D. BUT...that would have meant spending about $1200 for a mere 60% increase in speed, and really NOTHING else gained. Now consider the alternative: $4K on a 1D3, and enjoy not only a whopping 330% increase in speed...but also resolution...color handling... buffer... ruggedness... reliability... versatility... 100% viewfinder... grip... sealing... and on and on and on (the list runs about 40 or 50 items long). There is no comparison. Suddenly that $1200 30D doesn't look like such a bargain, and the 1D3 begins to fill out that expense rather well. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > I would only be disappointed if I expected to get the same thing on a mkIII > as on my 5D, which I don't. What do you use to get the equivalent of a 14mm > f2.8 on a 1.6x? You're missing my point, probably by intent. I think you actually missed my point. There are lenses sold to make up the difference in wide angle for APS-C sensors [granted the variety is not yet on par with 35mm format] and there are no such lenses available for APS-H, so one must simply adjust existing equipment or go with out. As noted, the camera was apparently marketed to those who shoot normal and long. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> I would only be disappointed if I expected to get the same thing on a >> mkIII [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > camera > was apparently marketed to those who shoot normal and long. No, I did not miss your point. There is no 1.6x equivalent for the 14mm f2.8. There isn't even a 1.6x equivalent for the 16-35 f2.8. There is, however, a lens that gives an equivalent field of view, but not the aperture, of the latter. Sure, there are no lenses that give the equivalent on the 1D mkIII, but the difference between 1.3 and FF is small enough for it not to matter much, except in the event of the need for the extreme wide angles, in which case, you're out of luck . SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>> I would only be disappointed if I expected to get the same thing on a >>> mkIII [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No, I did not miss your point. There is no 1.6x equivalent for the 14mm > f2.8. There isn't even a 1.6x equivalent for the 16-35 f2.8. There is a 10-17mm zoom available for Canon EF-S. Tokina makes one. > There is, > however, a lens that gives an equivalent field of view, but not the > aperture, of the latter. Agreed, there is no 2.8. I suspect it is not highly missed as wide angle photography does not typically need 2.8, so only autofocus would really benefit. Having said that, I am sure SOMEBODY might want it, so if the demand is large enough, I am sure there will be such a beast. The point though, is that there is an active industry behind developing glass specifically for APS-C sized sensors. Still, if you want f2.8 on the crop sensor ... > Sure, there are no lenses that give the equivalent > on the 1D mkIII, but the difference between 1.3 and FF is small enough for > it not to matter much, except in the event of the need for the extreme wide > angles, in which case, you're out of luck . It is about 50% of the effect of an APS-C ... that is significant in my book. However, apparently, I am not the intended consumer of a camera with an APS-H sensor [I like wide angle]. 1.3x can't be written off as having a neglible effect on focal length. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > No, I did not miss your point. There is no 1.6x equivalent for the > 14mm f2.8. There isn't even a 1.6x equivalent for the 16-35 f2.8. There [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is small enough for it not to matter much, except in the event of the > need for the extreme wide angles, in which case, you're out of luck . This is the sole reason you buy a 5D and use your 17-35/2.8 Nikkor till the new and improved 16-35/2.8 II hit the street. There's no sense in arguing about it. Skip. Rita >>> I would only be disappointed if I expected to get the same thing on a >>> mkIII [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > it not to matter much, except in the event of the need for the extreme wide > angles, in which case, you're out of luck . Not quite out of luck, Skip. Depending upon the subject and how a photo is preferred to be displayed, one can resort to stitching a couple of photos. >>>> I would only be disappointed if I expected to get the same thing on a >>>> mkIII [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Not quite out of luck, Skip. Depending upon the subject and how a photo is > preferred to be displayed, one can resort to stitching a couple of photos. True, but I'm speaking of lenses, not post production. With stitching and patience, you could conceivably do a 360 deg pano... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> That is sort of a silly thing to say. My comment was about Canon's >> motivation to produce a new lens lineup for this sensor size, which [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > comment is 100% aimed at the allegation that 1.3x is close enough to 35mm as > to be irrelavent. Not in the Canon line. > APS-H is just another format that is not needed [in my > opinion]. When stocked with conventional Canon 35mm lenses, the APS-H size sensor is a winner. Canon has full frame, APS-H (1.3x), and APS-C (1.6x) size sensors to offer the public. > Certainly, it limits the number of adopters [wide angle options > must be a bear ... so I suppose sports photographers get the most advantage > from these cameras]. >>> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were >>> full-frame 35mm sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > crop) than it is to 35mm format. Even so, it will noticably affect > wide-angle ability when using lenses designed for 35mm focus areas. For those of us also shooting with full frames..."silly" would be buying a whole set of small-sensor-only lenses. With the standard lenses, they'll work on either body. I'll end up with a kit consisting of full frame and 1.3 crop. The only set of lenses that would make sense for that it? -Full-frame lenses. Most folks who use the 1DMarkIII won't be needing super-wide much anyway. The vast majority will shoot mid to super tele for sports/wildlife, with wider angles rarely heading toward super-wide anyway. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >from 35mm for the weight and size savings to be significant enough to >make up for the added costs they would incur. The 1.3x format is an unnecessary step-child of a format. It is stuck between the legacy 35mm sized frame and the lightweight and practical 1.6x sensors. You 1D Mark III users have to pay for and lug around full-frame lenses and throw away 37% of the images they cast because they are cropped off. And with the 10 frames per second that they shoot, you get to throw away 37% ten times every second. Your precious $2000 14mm lens wilts to a mere 18mm with the 1.3x crop. Likewise the exciting 24mm becomes a boring 34mm. And the 15mm fisheye becomes a 20mm abortion. The rest of us, the 1.6 crop crowd, march off to a bright digital future laughing in our shirts at the 1.3x prima donnas. KS > The 1.3x format is an unnecessary step-child of a format. It is stuck > between the legacy 35mm sized frame and the lightweight and practical [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The rest of us, the 1.6 crop crowd, march off to a bright digital > future laughing in our shirts at the 1.3x prima donnas. Well said [with a bit much flare at the end] and it is exactly what I was trying to communicate [apparently ineffectively]. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>The 1.3x format is an unnecessary step-child of a format. It is stuck >>between the legacy 35mm sized frame and the lightweight and practical [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Well said [with a bit much flare at the end] and it is exactly what I was > trying to communicate [apparently ineffectively]. It's a nice compromise that still gives sports & wildife shooters a bit more reach while giving them bigger pixels for less noise, a step better than 1.6x and still get some more zoom than full frame. >>>The 1.3x format is an unnecessary step-child of a format. It is stuck >>>between the legacy 35mm sized frame and the lightweight and practical [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >more reach while giving them bigger pixels for less noise, a step better >than 1.6x and still get some more zoom than full frame. Okay, fair enough, assuming you are comparing to the 5D. However, the 1Ds, with 19,300 pixels per sq mm, has a higher pixel density than the Mark III (18,430 pix/mm^2) so you have better telephoto reach with the 1Ds. KS >>>>The 1.3x format is an unnecessary step-child of a format. It is stuck >>>>between the legacy 35mm sized frame and the lightweight and practical [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > density than the Mark III (18,430 pix/mm^2) so you have better > telephoto reach with the 1Ds. Hmm 16MP, but it's 'only' 4fps and designed for studio work or landscapes with a tripod, to compete with medium format resolution, so they go for more detail & less ability to increase ISO because those kind of photogs aren't generally shooting ISO 1600. And it's a couple years old :-) >>> "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > and throw away 37% of the images they cast because they are cropped > off. :) So for those of us using BOTH full-frame cameras and the 1DM3...you'd suggest we pick up an entire set of smaller, 1.3 lenses and carry those too?...just so as not to waste the outer portion of our existing lenses when we attach them to one of our bodies?? :) Think. > And with the 10 frames per second that they shoot, you get to throw > away 37% ten times every second. You know...there are a lot of doofuses out there (you, perhaps?) who seem the think that the only reason for having 10fps is to sit there holding your finger on the button. That's just not the case most of the time. To the contrary...it's not usually about how many frames you can get for a full second. It's far more common that what you REALLY want is the ability to fire off 2 to 4 shots in quick succession, timed tightly around a single key moment. NOT just blasting away for seconds on end. This idea that 10fps automatically means laying on the trigger is just an argument made by those with little or no experience with high fps. There ARE times where you might want to keep blasting (like Bill Hilton, and his lion fight scene), or perhaps a panning sequence of a bird, athelete, of finish line. With my EOS 3 at 6 or 7fps, rare was the time I held the shutter down for a full second or more. More often, it was shooting 2 or 3 shots. Beyond the ability to shoot quickly, then you want a quick, smart buffer that enables the ability to shoot again without waiting. > Your precious $2000 14mm lens wilts to a mere 18mm with the 1.3x crop. > Likewise the exciting 24mm becomes a boring 34mm. And the 15mm fisheye > becomes a 20mm abortion. That might be important for folks who use only a single body. For the market that camera is aimed at, I'd bet that 95% of them have multiple bodies...and if they frequently need wide angle, they'll have a full-frame handy (unless they shoot Nikon, and then they're out of luck). For me, the 1D3 with complement full-frame--not replace it. > The rest of us, the 1.6 crop crowd, march off to a bright digital > future laughing in our shirts at the 1.3x prima donnas. :) Whatever floats yer boat...but that sounds an awful lot like sour grapes to me. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>> "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >we attach them to one of our bodies?? :) >Think. Which 1.3 lenses were you thinking of?? No such animal. KS >>>>> "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Which 1.3 lenses were you thinking of?? No such animal. Missed the point. Point: Full frame lenses are not wasted on a 1.3 if you also shoot full-frame. Save'? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson <snip> > Your precious $2000 14mm lens wilts to a mere 18mm with the 1.3x crop. > Likewise the exciting 24mm becomes a boring 34mm. And the 15mm fisheye [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > KS You mean with the 14mm that acts like a 22mm lens, a 24mm that gives you a field of view equal to that of a 38mm lens on a FF body, or a 15mm fish that doesn't fish? Yah, 1.6x crop is soooo superior... Show me a 1.6x crop camera that takes Canon lenses, fires off at 10 fps, will cache 110 shots (JPEG) before having to take a breath, is as rugged as a 1 series, has a 14 bit processor, and I'll concede your point. But, until then, don't be snide. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > as rugged as a 1 series, has a 14 bit processor, and I'll concede > your point. But, until then, don't be snide. Bingo. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were full-frame 35mm >>> sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically for 1.3x multipliers? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >KS How so? You knock the MK III's wide angle capabilities, yet (according to you) you own a 1.6x camera that is far more limited in wide angle capabilities, and you say you laugh at the 1.3x "prima donnas". You throw away even more with every shot, and seem proud of it. How does that work, exactly? SignatureThe Discovery Channel debuted a new documentary series called Planet Earth on Sunday. The show follows the breeding cycle of the Emperor Penguin. It may not be a right-wing conspiracy but even the Discovery Channel's trying to catch Bill Clinton in a sex scandal. >>>> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were full-frame 35mm >>>> sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically for 1.3x multipliers? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >throw away even more with every shot, and seem proud of it. >How does that work, exactly? The 1.6 crop family of cameras is not wide-angle-limited the way the 1.3x cameras are. I use the 10-22mm zoom. This is a very sharp and versatile ultra-wide, and is half the cost of the 14mm fix-focus lens which doesn't get you as wide a field on the 1.3x camera. The 10-22mm, 17-55mm, 17-85-mm and 18-55mm EF-S lenses are designed for the format and don't waste any image. KS >>>>> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were full-frame 35mm >>>>> sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically for 1.3x multipliers? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >The 10-22mm, 17-55mm, 17-85-mm and 18-55mm EF-S lenses are designed >for the format and don't waste any image. Still, the EFS format is limited at the wide angle. You can't do fisheye with it. To do fisheye, you need the 1Ds or 5D. And the longer lenses are all designed for the 36x24mm format, which means they waste image on the 1.6x cameras. Or, stated more relevantly, you need to pay for and haul around unnecessary glass when using teles with the EF-S format. KS >>>>>> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were >>>>>> full-frame 35mm sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Still, the EFS format is limited at the wide angle. You can't do > fisheye with it. That's news to Tokina, Sigma, and Nikon. > To do fisheye, you need the 1Ds or 5D. And the longer > lenses are all designed for the 36x24mm format, which means they waste > image on the 1.6x cameras. Or, stated more relevantly, you need to pay > for and haul around unnecessary glass when using teles with the EF-S > format. If you keep repeating that one long enough maybe somebody will buy it. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were >>>>>>> full-frame 35mm sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > If you keep repeating that one long enough maybe somebody will buy it. Well, Sigma's 15mm fisheye is decidedly non fishy on a 20D. But Nikons 10.5 fish works just fine on a Nikon body. I think KS was referring to EF/EF-S mount bodies. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>>>>>> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were >>>>>>>> full-frame 35mm sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Nikons 10.5 fish works just fine on a Nikon body. I think KS was > referring to EF/EF-S mount bodies. Try the _8_mm Sigma, or the 8mm Peleng, or the 10-17 Tokina (only zoom fisheye ever made I believe, no, it's not a rectilinear wide angle). The Nikon might work as well with a suitable adapter--just about any Nikon lens with manual focus will work on a Canon. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>>>> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were >>>>>>>>> full-frame 35mm sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > The Nikon might work as well with a suitable adapter--just about any > Nikon lens with manual focus will work on a Canon. That Tokina remains somewhat vaporwareish. I've not been able to find one. But, I suspect, if the Sigma 15mm doesn't fish, the 17mm side of the Tokina won't, either. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>>>>>>>> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were >>>>>>>>>> full-frame 35mm sensors. So, do they sell lenses [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > find one. But, I suspect, if the Sigma 15mm doesn't fish, the 17mm > side of the Tokina won't, either. Then use the 10. That's why it's there. Or in between. The point is that there are several fisheye options for the Canon. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Well, Sigma's 15mm fisheye is decidedly non fishy on a 20D. But Nikons 10.5 > fish works just fine on a Nikon body. I think KS was referring to EF/EF-S > mount bodies. Take a closer look: http://tinyurl.com/yq2pht SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> Well, Sigma's 15mm fisheye is decidedly non fishy on a 20D. But Nikons >> 10.5 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/yq2pht I kept, just now, (thus the "vaporware" comment on my reply to John) doing a search for that lens on B&H, and came up with nothing. Interesting. I've been wanting to look at that lens for some time, but couldn't find it. Thanks. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>> To do fisheye, you need the 1Ds or 5D. And the longer >>> lenses are all designed for the 36x24mm format, which means they waste [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >fish works just fine on a Nikon body. I think KS was referring to EF/EF-S >mount bodies. Tokina has the AT-X 124 AF PRO DX 12-24mm fisheye available. SignatureCharlie Sheen told a radio interviewer Friday that the Twin Towers were imploded by the U.S. government. His family is proud of his progress. Every minute he's in a radio station accusing his own government of mass murder is another minute he's not gambling online. > Tokina has the AT-X 124 AF PRO DX 12-24mm fisheye available. That one is the wide angle zoom. The Fisheye zoom is 10-17mm. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > Still, the EFS format is limited at the wide angle. You can't do > fisheye with it. To do fisheye, you need the 1Ds or 5D. And the longer > lenses are all designed for the 36x24mm format, which means they waste > image on the 1.6x cameras. Or, stated more relevantly, you need to pay > for and haul around unnecessary glass when using teles with the EF-S > format. There ARE lenses out there which are wide enough to do fisheye for EF-S mounts. Tokina has one [10-17mm], http://tinyurl.com/yq2pht There are several for Nikon, including DX prime Nikkor glass: http://tinyurl.com/3bnyl9 and a Tokina like that available for EF-S: http://tinyurl.com/yp2v9w There will be more as demand calls for it, I have little doubt. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > There are several for Nikon, including DX prime Nikkor glass: There is a mix-up in your nomenclature. A DX lens really isn't a lens. Nobody buys DX lenses. Rita Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> There are several for Nikon, including DX prime Nikkor glass: > > There is a mix-up in your nomenclature. A DX lens really isn't a lens. > Nobody buys DX lenses. No? Funny ... very funny. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > There is a mix-up in your nomenclature. A DX lens really isn't a lens. It's a hedgehog? > Nobody buys DX lenses. You claim thus, no DX lens was ever sold? -Wolfgang >> There is a mix-up in your nomenclature. A DX lens really isn't a >> lens. > > It's a hedgehog? That works for me. >> Nobody buys DX lenses. > > You claim thus, no DX lens was ever sold? Not in my neck of the woods, us country folk only buy real Nikkors. We save them thar DX consumer lenses for the city slickers. Rita >>> There is a mix-up in your nomenclature. A DX lens really isn't a >>> lens. >> It's a hedgehog? > That works for me. You know, screwing hedgehogs in front of your camera is probably a redneck-only thing. >> You claim thus, no DX lens was ever sold? > Not in my neck of the woods, us country folk only buy real Nikkors. We save > them thar DX consumer lenses for the city slickers. So "city slickers" are nobodies? You do enjoy being persecuted, it seems. -Wolfgang > Nobody buys DX lenses. rita rita rita.... tsk tsk tsk... :-) I love my 10.5mm DX Nikor >>>>> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were full-frame >>>>> 35mm [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > KS In case you didn't notice, the 10-22 gives up speed for width. For some, that's unacceptable. And, as you move away from 55mm, you are cropping more than with a 1.3x body, so the 85-100mm range, a good portrait length on a 1.3x or FF body, are too long for the 1.6x. Before you go much farther, be advised that I own a 20D, so the travails of 1.6x are not an unknown to me. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>>> No, I am not familiar. I "thought" previous versions were >>>>> full-frame 35mm sensors. So, do they sell lenses specifically [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > The 1.6 crop family of cameras is not wide-angle-limited the way the > 1.3x cameras are. Somehow or other, it has failed to occur to you that the target market for the 1D 1.3 series is NOT the wide angle crowd...rather the tele crowd. Sports...wildlife...PJs... I've never seen a PJ who spent a lot of time walking around with a 14mm lens. Have you? Your argument is about as dumb as complaining that Leer jets are a waste of money because they can't haul much lumber. Different market...different features. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>How so? You knock the MK III's wide angle capabilities, yet (according >>to you) you own a 1.6x camera that is far more limited in wide angle [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >KS It seems you're picking nits. There are 12mm lenses available for the MIII. The idea that you don't throw away part of the image circle with EF-S lenses is, to me, far fetched; since image circles are round, we *always* throw away part of the image circle (except for fisheye lenses). And, as has been pointed out, the niche the MIII fits in doesn't include those looking for extreme wide angle, for the most part. I see your point, but th enumber of EF-S lenses is, to put it mildly, small compared to the normal EF-mount lenses available. While I own a 30D, I certainly didn't get it because EF-S lenses are available. :-) SignatureCharlie Sheen told a radio interviewer Friday that the Twin Towers were imploded by the U.S. government. His family is proud of his progress. Every minute he's in a radio station accusing his own government of mass murder is another minute he's not gambling online. >>>How so? You knock the MK III's wide angle capabilities, yet (according >>>to you) you own a 1.6x camera that is far more limited in wide angle [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >small compared to the normal EF-mount lenses available. While I own a >30D, I certainly didn't get it because EF-S lenses are available. :-) "Throwing away" part of the image is admittedly not a very appropriate phrase. What is relevant is that in some situations with the smaller sensor cameras (1.3 and 1.6x) one has to buy more glass than is necessary for the sensor. And that is a disadvantage. But as pointed out, there is now a very fine selection of lenses specifically made for the EF-S series of cameras. They don't waste image, they don't waste glass. And they access true ultra-wide performance for these cameras. For me, that's essential. There is (so far) no such line of lenses for the MkIII. Not by Canon, anyway. Granted the MkIII is a niche camera. IMHO it would have been better if Canon had created an improved 1.6x camera with the high frame rate and with the deeper bit rate. Such a camera would probably still occupy a niche owing to the probable high price, but it would have had ultrawide capabilities for those that want that. Yes, the selection of EF-S lenses is limited today. The format is still young, though, so possibly we will see more in the future. KS >On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:16:08 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> >"Throwing away" part of the image is admittedly not a very appropriate >phrase. What is relevant is that in some situations with the smaller >sensor cameras (1.3 and 1.6x) one has to buy more glass than is >necessary for the sensor. And that is a disadvantage. Unless of course you already have larger frame cameras, & full frame lenses to go with them. >But as pointed out, there is now a very fine selection of lenses >specifically made for the EF-S series of cameras. They don't waste [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >There is (so far) no such line of lenses for the MkIII. Not by Canon, >anyway. Well no, of course not. What on earth for? I use full frame EF glass on all my EOS bodies, 1.6x, 1.3x & full frame. Why would I waste money on new lenses that I could only use on one camera? >Granted the MkIII is a niche camera. Where on earth are you getting this rubbish from? The 1DmkIII is the latest of several 1.3x Canon pro bodies (1Dmk2, 1Dmk2N, & 1Dmk3), & is the fastest, most popular photojournalist DSLR on the market! The only other DLSR that comes close is the 1Ds2, which is intended for studio work, which is slower, but has higher resolution. > IMHO it would have been better if >Canon had created an improved 1.6x camera with the high frame rate and >with the deeper bit rate. Such a camera would probably still occupy a >niche owing to the probable high price, but it would have had >ultrawide capabilities for those that want that. Um. 1.6x format gives you *tele*, not 'ultrawide', in comparison to a 1.6x body! If you want wide, you'd use a 5D or a 1Ds full frame body. SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > Um. 1.6x format gives you *tele*, not 'ultrawide', in comparison to a > 1.6x body! If you want wide, you'd use a 5D or a 1Ds full frame body. No, 1.6x gives you nothign at all. 1.6x with 35mm designed class will give you [relatively] tele. 1.6x with APS-C designed glass will give you whatever the lens is designed for [in the case of the Tokina 10-17mm, it is ultra-wide fish-eye]. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >No, 1.6x gives you nothign at all. 1.6x with 35mm designed class will give >you [relatively] tele. That's what I said. Note my use of the phrase "in comparison". SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>No, 1.6x gives you nothign at all. 1.6x with 35mm designed class will give >>you [relatively] tele. > > That's what I said. Note my use of the phrase "in comparison". That is NOT what you said. You said: "Um. 1.6x format gives you tele , not 'ultrawide', in comparison to a 1.6x body! If you want wide, you'd use a 5D or a 1Ds full frame body." 1.6x does not give you anything, as I just indicated ... it completely depends upon the glass on the camera. If you use glass that was intended for 35mm, it will act longer on a 1.6x crop than it was actually designed for. Granted, I believe you understand the difference, but that isn't what you actually said. I belive you probably meant to indicate that 35mm designed glass will act longer on a 1.6x body and not shorter (ultrawide). SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>>No, 1.6x gives you nothign at all. 1.6x with 35mm designed class will give >>>you [relatively] tele. >> >> That's what I said. Note my use of the phrase "in comparison". > >That is NOT what you said. You said: Oh. Now I see what you mean. >"Um. 1.6x format gives you tele , not 'ultrawide', in comparison to a >1.6x body! ^^^^^ That bit was a typo. I meant to say: '1.0x' or 'full frame'. Obviously 1.6x is not wider or longer than 1.6x! >I belive you probably meant to indicate that 35mm designed glass will act >longer on a 1.6x body and not shorter (ultrawide). Yes, & it's what I /thought/ I said. ;^) SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:16:08 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> >>"Throwing away" part of the image is admittedly not a very appropriate [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >Um. 1.6x format gives you *tele*, not 'ultrawide', in comparison to a >1.6x body! If you want wide, you'd use a 5D or a 1Ds full frame body. This thread is not for you. You are a fullframer and you are happy. Peace. KS >>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:16:08 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> >>>"Throwing away" part of the image is admittedly not a very appropriate [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >This thread is not for you. You are a fullframer and you are happy. >Peace. Actually, I use multiple frame sizes, 1.3x, 1.6x, & full frame. (But mostly 1.3x on my 1Dmk2, which is by far the nicest camera I own.) SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > Well no, of course not. What on earth for? I use full frame EF glass > on all my EOS bodies, 1.6x, 1.3x & full frame. Why would I waste money > on new lenses that I could only use on one camera? You really should not brag too much in public that you use them damn kit lenses. Rita >>On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:16:08 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> >>"Throwing away" part of the image is admittedly not a very appropriate [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The only other DLSR that comes close is the 1Ds2, which is intended > for studio work, which is slower, but has higher resolution. Lionel, that's still a niche. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:16:08 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> >>>"Throwing away" part of the image is admittedly not a very appropriate [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Lionel, that's still a niche. Only in the same sense that DSLRs themselves are a niche. If there's any kind of photography that can be done with a generic 35mm format SLR, but is unsuited to the 1Dmk2, I haven't yet heard of it. SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:16:08 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> >>>>"Throwing away" part of the image is admittedly not a very appropriate [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > any kind of photography that can be done with a generic 35mm format > SLR, but is unsuited to the 1Dmk2, I haven't yet heard of it. Well, Lionel, you could say that, but then that makes a camera that is aimed at a specific group of users within another group even more of a niche product. How about landscape photography? Wide angles are less wide on the 1D type sensors than on 35mm film. You, yourself, said it is "the most popular photojournalist DSLR on the market!" That defines "niche," Lionel, now, doesn't it? How many PJs are there on the planet, compared to the general population? Just because something has the ability to be used beyond its original intent doesn't mean it isn't a niche product. A niche product has a specific group at which it is targeted. You can still fetch groceries in a Corvette, and do it well, but it isn't targeted at the general public. In fact, you can do anything in it that you can a Taurus, except carry 4 people. Still, that doesn't make it any less of a niche product. Why does everybody get defensive about the term "niche?" Some of the finest products in the world are niche products. Bang and Olufsen has made a complete business plan of making niche products, as has Ferrari. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message