Guys, instead of all the 'turn page' posts, please simply PM me when it starts to happen and I'll fix it.
Thanks,
Jeff
FM.com Moderator
PS: Also, if you simply 'add one' to the page number in the address bar, you'll be able to view the (last) page that isn't being correctly linked, i.e. change:
tgrey wrote:
The 2500e price for a 100-400 f/4 IS looks impossibly low. The Nikon 200-400/4 sells for more than twice that, no?
Not if it is a number pulled out of someone's a**.
As I've mentioned before a high quality 400/4 IS would be about the same price as the 300/2.8 IS (assuming sufficient volume). Of course a quality fixed 100-400/4 IS zoom would be more costly to produce than either. The 200-400VR Nikkor is reasonably priced. The problem is that most of the phonies and trolls out there are not familiar with R&D and mfg. costs, ROI, etc.
Okay, I gotta get in on this, the lengthiest thread I've ever followed in over twenty years of interneting.
I don't even own any Canon gear, and I am completely pumped with anticipation for the coming announcements. After all the (hopefully) new announcements, I will be posting a "help me decide" post. After following this thread I'm about 95% ready to jump ship.
What great entertainment this is. Thanks to all of you for using up lots of my time.
bob parrish wrote:
I don't even own any Canon gear, and I am completely pumped with anticipation for the coming announcements. After all the (hopefully) new announcements, I will be posting a "help me decide" post. After following this thread I'm about 95% ready to jump ship.
Excellent - Conon's secret attempt at viral marketig worked them
Ooops - I let the cat out of the bag
PS - What do you shoot with now - or are we converting a virgin....
bob parrish wrote:
Okay, I gotta get in on this, the lengthiest thread I've ever followed in over twenty years of interneting.
bob
aka jzzmusician
So do you load each page individually or do it the quick way by pressing the print post button and loading them all as one page then scroll down
Edited by hydrotoast on Feb 20, 2007 at 06:55 AM GMT
You aren't quite up to par with field of view. That's one of the biggest draws of MF. If 35 can hit the 30-40 MP mark, then MF will be 60-80. Also, many hi-end billboard/advertising photographers still use 4x5 view cameras.
stevesanacore wrote:
Why not? If they could eventually get 30-40MP in a 35mm body and produce Leica quality lenses, they would put current MF out to pasture. They can do it in small steps, and in a few years 6x45 will go the way of 4x5, which went the way of 8x10 ..... etc. etc.
The previous links could easily have been simple put ups to amuse but these start to look a little more official and not many major companies would view changing their lens listing pages for hoots and giggles with kind regard.
Both lens are reasonable possibilities though the big time premium for IS on the 400mm better include improved optics to justify the increase. I don't suspect it really will and that the pricing is merely to make up for some of the lost big gun sales that will occur. On the other hand, the pricing of the 100-400 F4 IS will be a serious blow to Nikon ($3500 less than their 200-400 F4 VR). Pretty good strategy all in all. ...Show more →
In Belgium I have seen a lot of positive reviews about this internet provider they seem to be a reliable supplier
I wonder why Americans don't have any good Belgian jokes. I bet the Dutch do. I'm just trying to figure out a response to this website when the truth is exposed. Of course it would be in good taste. :-)
We do enjoy Belgian waffles and Belgian chocolate, though.
python2000 wrote:
I wonder why Americans don't have any good Belgian jokes. I bet the Dutch do. I'm just trying to figure out a response to this website when the truth is exposed. Of course it would be in good taste. :-)
We do enjoy Belgian waffles and Belgian chocolate, though.
The Dutch have a lot of Belgian jokes and the Belgians have a lot Dutch jokes. The dutch also enjoy Belgian chocolate
I was getting a laugh out of posts suggesting that something needed to be changed just because it is some number of months old, and I enjoyed the reply that came before my post. There are aspects of photography technology a that are quite old now but which still are quite useful - so changing just to change is not necessary.
On the other hand, I don't have a lot of sympathy for folks who complain when a new camera comes out "too soon," apparently with the presumption that they will have to buy it. They don't. In fact, for many people upgrading bodies perhaps every other cycle makes more sense - if the new bodies offer something that they need. (And, unfortunately for our finances, they have tended to recently...)...Show more →
Well, of course you don't have to upgrade. I only wondered if there is a precedent to a multi-point AF system which is in production for so long.
I'd be surprised if Canon:
1) Didn't upgrade the AF system, especially in the 1 series.
2) Reduced from AF 45 points in the 1 series (its so hard to explain why less is more!)
But this still leaves a lot such as:
1) More cross type sensors / more senstive sensors for appatures of f5.6 and f8
2) Smarter / faster AF tracking
3) More dynamic optiions where some of the points are treated as hidden and used for tracking or depth of field management etc.
4) Different arrangement of AF points (e.g. on the 1Ds Mark III they could (shock horror) cover more of the frame!
