Chasseur d'Images just posted on their homepage an interesting comment regarding Canon rumours.
They confirm the 5D and 24-105 are real and will be officialy presented next monday ( 22nd ) .
They talk as well about the new marketing techniques, like organized information leaks .
But CI criticizes also Canon politics regarding the EF-S mount : people investing money in such lenses will not be able to switch to full frame because of the cost.
Chasseur d'Images just posted on their homepage an interesting comment regarding Canon rumours.
They confirm the 5D and 24-105 are real and will be officialy presented next monday ( 22nd ) .
They talk as well about the new marketing techniques, like organized information leaks .
But CI criticizes also Canon politics regarding the EF-S mount : people investing money in such lenses will not be able to switch to full frame because of the cost.
Gilles.
They suggest that the 24-105 L will be the 'kit-lens' of the 5D .
When you take the imagined kit price of 5000 and subtract out the imagined base price of the 5D, 3500, you get an imagined price of 1500 for the lens.
Monito wrote:
When you take the imagined kit price of 5000 and subtract out the imagined base price of the 5D, 3500, you get an imagined price of 1500 for the lens.
These are "list prices". I would not be surprised to see the 5D under 3000 body only in more competitive stores and on the internet, and the lens around 1100 if 1500 is the list price. Then, the price in the US should be the same... in $ instead of : you would get a kit at something like 4000$. Seems realistic to me.
Anyway, clearly out of my prices... for long.
Edited by Xavier Rival on Aug 16, 2005 at 10:53 AM GMT
Xavier Rival wrote:
These are "list prices". I would not be surprised to see the 5D under 3000 body only in more competitive stores and on the internet, and the lens around 1100 if 1500 is the list price. Then, the price in the US should be the same... in $ instead of : you would get a kit at something like 4000$. Seems realistic to me.
Anyway, clearly out of my prices... for long. :cry:
They should stay at list for the first couple of months, as all new technological products do.
Why would one buy the 24-105L f/4 if the 24-70L f/2.8 is the same price or even less expensive?? 24-105mm is a nice range but I'd rather have the f-stop! My guess is that the 24-105L will be less that $1000.
hauxon wrote:
Why would one buy the 24-105L f/4 if the 24-70L f/2.8 is the same price or even less expensive?? 24-105mm is a nice range but I'd rather have the f-stop! My guess is that the 24-105L will be less that $1000.
I already have the 24-70 f2.8L, but would still buy the 24-105 f4L for greater range in day time 'walkabout' - especially if it has IS.
There are times when 70mm is just not long enough, though I am sure I will say the same for 105 too in 12 months time.....
hauxon wrote:
Why would one buy the 24-105L f/4 if the 24-70L f/2.8 is the same price or even less expensive?? 24-105mm is a nice range but I'd rather have the f-stop! My guess is that the 24-105L will be less that $1000.
Comparing the 2.8 IS and Non IS lens, we can assume that the cost of incorporating IS mechanism is 500 bucks...
So if we add that 500 bucks to the f4 lens... it is going to cost around 1000 USD for a 70-200/4 to have IS... which is the same prcie as the 2.8 IS
So, i can safely say that if the 24-70/2.8 was made slower to a f4 and added IS, the price will be same as the 24-70/2.8 is around 1000 USD... Now the 24-105/4 IS has a longer reach, so i dont think it is unreasonable for Canon to raise the price of this to be EVEN more expensive than the 24-70....
Ok, I was just about to start doing a translation by myself, when I saw the google translation link... A lot of effort saved, even if the translation is not 100% ok. Indeed "Canon" also means "gun" in French.
As far as the "tests" of lenses are concerned, just a small precision: they refer to their tests with the DxO analyzer, which is also sold as a tool so as to fix defects due to the optics (such as vignetting, sharpness, distortion). These tests showed very significant differences between several bodies (e.g., 10D, 1DmkII, and 1Ds) for a same lens.
I do not remember seing any test for EF wide angle primes (they mostly limited the tests to zooms, since they sell more); but one thing I do remember is that very few lenses performed great on full frame sensor cameras.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
I have been saying this for 3 years. And the same will be true for the 5D
Our tests, indeed, showed that the Eos-1d cases do not marry always well with optics of the traditional range Canon EF. With the wire of the months, we even showed that some of these objectives, which were fabulous on film, give piθtrres results on a Cmo sensor cuts 24x36!
Numerically, ONE NEEDS the optics especially studied for the numerical one! The EOS 5D thus will pose a true problem with the amateurs: not only it will be a very expensive apparatus (3500 euros naked, it is a beautiful budget for an amateur!), but it will be necessary to offer to him optics of very high flight, the possibility of recycling old objectives being not very possible....Show more →
Well, the translation is a bit 'off' but you did understand what they say.
They have a very thorough lens test procedure, that I like very much.
Not that it would make a difference to me...this is all out of my price league...but why aren't we imagining 5 fps? 3 seems kinda cheap for such an expensive imaginary camera.
smaniscalco wrote:
Not that it would make a difference to me...this is all out of my price league...but why aren't we imagining 5 fps? 3 seems kinda cheap for such an expensive imaginary camera.
The 1DsmkII does 4 fps. The 1Ds does 3fps. I do not understand you expect more with a price 60 % lower. DSLRs require a huge processing power, with fast memory chips and buffers; this is quite expensive.
Looks like the 5D is next to the 20D here. It probably does not inherit the buffer of the 1 series. Not suprising: it would be less expensive than a 1Dmk2, with a bigger sensor. It also would get the AF and metering of the 20D.
.
.
