Schlotkins wrote:
Well, I'm assuming you are even including if you turn IS off. But, I'm game: Minus the 70-200 2.8, what other professional quality zooms has Canon simplied added the IS and the imagine quality declined?
I think quite a few people would argue the IQ of the new 24-105 L is very, very close to the 24-70 even before considering the disadvantage of the 24-105 because of its increaded range.
Chris
Minus the 70-200/2.8? Why 'minus' the most used L zoom? How does comparing the 24-105 to the 24-70 support your assertion?
I should have left out "zoom". the 300/4 became significantly worse with IS. The only lenses that were not made worse with IS are the big primes. It apparently takes a lot of money to keep the extra lens group from decreasing ideal resolution.
When a direct comparison can be made, adding IS is a downgrade for tripod and higher shutter speed use.
Edited by dcmiller on Aug 21, 2006 at 03:15 PM GMT
dcmiller wrote:
Unfortunately, if there is only one camera, a 10mp rebel seems the most likely. Especially if Canon is concerned about a Nikon pixel race at the low end. This would also explain why Nikon would announce early, making a buzz ahead of Canon. Of course, Canon will actually deliver a significant number of new cameras in Sept. While Nikon will deliver one or two in Sept. and then a few more for Christmas......
Well, I guess now is the 'big' time, - when the 'big' thinks happends.
The point-and-shoot might come in september, - but not the 1DS Mk III and the the 3000D if they'll ever make it.
The new Rebel, - well. It could, - but I really don't think so, - and especially not now (Nikon and Sony pressure).
I don't believe they'll have even the sligtest chance of making any changes to the Rebel replacement after the Nikon D80 was official. If they knew something 6 months ago, - perhaps. Not - not possible. Unless of course they will make a paper announcement and ship in sometime next year.
They do of course have the ability to change the release date a month. It might give a slower ramp up or perhaps even not deliver before in september or something, - but I guess most people would be able to live with that.
Point taken. I guess for me and the 70-200 f4, I think the expected decrease in image quality wide open would probably be worth it. Otherwise, I'd be looking at using a higher ISO (bad news over 800 on my 10D) or handshake. Certainly, a tripod would be the best bet, but that's not an option when trying to be mobile in a group of people.
pixelman wrote:
Why IS for the F4? They have hooked many people on the idea of IS. It's harder to tell people to go practise holding, shooting, stance, aka using a bit of tradecraft as opposed to sending Mr Canon a few hundred bucks. People are looking for assurance. If I spend that much money I want it to be great for sure sort of thing. What's a little bit more for a semiguarantee even if it weights more, cost more, makes it harder for the target market to hold. We humans are funny crew. But after having dis'd the idea choice is good. There's a market for both lensbabys and L's....Show more →
Not everybody is in perfect health, or find it easy to hold a lens perfectly still or lug monopods or tripods.
The average age of a DSLR user is over 50, so perhaps Canon are wise enough to cater for their actual users rather than those who say that they are 6' 4", weigh 240lbs and work out, and sometimes seem to be more interested in describing themselves than talking about cameras! ;-)
A 70-200/4 IS would sell like hot-cakes, if reasonably priced
Regards,
DaveMart
Point taken. I guess for me and the 70-200 f4, I think the expected decrease in image quality wide open would probably be worth it. Otherwise, I'd be looking at using a higher ISO (bad news over 800 on my 10D) or handshake. Certainly, a tripod would be the best bet, but that's not an option when trying to be mobile in a group of people.
Chris
Any decrease in image quality can be a bit more theoretical than real.
In my book there is not much wrong with the IQ of the 70-200/2.8 IS, at any rate.
Perfectionists would presumably be using primes rather than zooms in any case.
Regards,
DaveMart
DaveMart wrote:
The average age of a DSLR user is over 50, so perhaps Canon are wise enough to cater for their actual users rather than those who say that they are 6' 4", weigh 240lbs and work out, and sometimes seem to be more interested in describing themselves than talking about cameras! ;-)
I used to work out (before I had kids) and that didn't seem to help much with how steady I held my camera, but it did help in how I felt by the end of the day after lugging all my gear around at the events...
DaveMart wrote:
A 70-200/4 IS would sell like hot-cakes, if reasonably priced.
I agree, my wife would do well with IS on this lens and not have to lug the extra weight of the 2.8
I kinda thought that couch potatoes would be the better people to use non IS lenses. They know how to be very very still. Those workout people man they squirming and giggling all the time and they like weight lifting. In any event regardless of what they introduce lets just all gather at the local dealer in our cities and camp out like buying concert tickets. Let that dirty old sleeping bag get one more use before Labour day
(mr handheld.... you sir own at truckload of stuff. I'm a professional and I generally carry three lenses17-40,24-70 70-200 f2.8 before IS was an option so no dilemas about which in fall of 2000 when I sold the F's and moved into the new millenia. I currently own 6 or 7 so in total and a couple extenders and bring the others only as needed. Would like more but know I can only carry so much so never get around to it. I'm actually thinking of getting the 135L and leave the 70-200 on the shelf more I think. In the old days I had to cover 4x5 and 2 1/4 so having just one format is much more efficient than having various duplication over three systems.)
So NIkon really seems to have a hit with it's 18-200. We must be silly for wanting these various other narrowly focused lenses. GL all
Reading the forum, sometimes I think I've accidentally stumbled into a parkinsons support group. What's the problem with hand holding short focal lenght lenses on cameras with high ISO capability? I want the option of lower cost, lower weight, sharper zooms. So far there are good choices. But I hope Canon doesn't go "all IS" on the shorter zooms.
pixelman wrote:
(mr handheld.... you sir own at truckload of stuff. I'm a professional and I generally carry three lenses17-40,24-70 70-200 f2.8 before IS was an option so no dilemas about which in fall of 2000 when I sold the F's and moved into the new millenia. I currently own 6 or 7 so in total and a couple extenders and bring the others only as needed. Would like more but know I can only carry so much so never get around to it. I'm actually thinking of getting the 135L and leave the 70-200 on the shelf more I think. In the old days I had to cover 4x5 and 2 1/4 so having just one format is much more efficient than having various duplication over three systems.)
So NIkon really seems to have a hit with it's 18-200. We must be silly for wanting these various other narrowly focused lenses. GL all
...Show more →
I'm getting the feeling now that a 70-200/4 IS and a 135/2 might cover a great range of situations, perhaps with a 24-105/4 IS and a 85/1.8, or a 85/1.2 if you are feeling rich.
2.8 is all very well, but when the light gets seriously bad doesn't really work.
Apparently the 18-200VR shows a disconcerting tendency to break - consumer construction as well as optics!
Regards,
DaveMart
dcmiller wrote:
Reading the forum, sometimes I think I've accidentally stumbled into a parkinsons support group. What's the problem with hand holding short focal lenght lenses on cameras with high ISO capability? I want the option of lower cost, lower weight, sharper zooms. So far there are good choices. But I hope Canon doesn't go "all IS" on the shorter zooms.
There are good small IS choices like 70-300 IS DO
The elderly have a good choice with sony
Why should anyone care what you want, since you seem unconcerned with others wants?
You appear to be a singularly graceless individual, and I would thank you to keep tasteless remarks about serious ailments to yourself.
DaveMart
This seems to be turning into an "IS vs. non IS" thread, I'm sure that would be a great topic for another thread but doesn't really apply to "rumors", of course, 98% of this whole thread isn't really rumors, but just trying to keep it real.
FWIW I owned the 300 f/4 L and the 300 f/4 L IS lenses and found both to be outstanding optically...
pixelman wrote:
(mr handheld.... you sir own at truckload of stuff. I'm a professional and I generally carry three lenses17-40,24-70 70-200 f2.8 .... Would like more but know I can only carry so much so never get around to it. I'm actually thinking of getting the 135L .
* I like to have options with lenses, compare and analyse their performance.
I also end up cleaning my camera sensor often.
* I never carry more than 2 lens/2camera kit with me.
* If you wanna see a cartload of stuff check Netexpress or Remford's signatures. There are many others too.
* I am at peace with the notion that I can not shoot like a pro because I am just an old hack who is having lottsa fun doing photography nevertheless.
* Do stop thinking and do get that 135L.......a killer lens....totally different league than the 70-200's.
Anyway, if the XTi is real (and if there's a book there must be a camera), the mystery is back to the "X" teaser. Could the 'X' have nothing to do with a still photography product?
