Sorry, but I think everything aboth the 3k mark is to high for that lens. Perhaps not technical, but I think their plan would be to really sell a lot from that lens. I also don't think they will get near the quality of any of their 300 or 400 lenses, so the price shouldn't be near it either. if a big IF they really can deliver the same quality than we could start talking about 3-4k. But on the other hand not to many amertures would buy it anymore. Because Come on who spends nearly 4K on a lens, except pros and insane people ;-)
From where I am (Michigan), Cleveland is a joke. (period)... and or also known as the 'armpit of the USA'. But then, I'm sure they feel t he same way about Michigan and/or Detroit.
10DFT wrote: - Cleveland is that big city to the north where people actually have to pay to park their cars downtown. I tend to avoid it.
I would be very surprised if a 100-400/4L IS came out at $2500. Double that would be reasonable, and at $4K it would probably be very competitively priced. Not too many people are going to be buying a likely >7lb. lens not too much smaller than a 500/4 for travel. That size lens is going to be hand holdable by a very few, and will require tripod/head combos on par with the other super teles. By making it a 4X zoom instead of a 2X zoom (ala Nikon), optically it becomes more difficult to maintain sharpness commensurate with a $4K lens throughout the range. At $4K I'd probably consider buying it, but I'd sure want to see others experience first.
Just something that I haven't seen posted anywhere. I was at a workshop conducted by two of the top wedding photographers in the world (Marcus Bell and Joe Buissink) and it was mentioned by one of them that what is about to come out will blow us away regarding dynamic range.
So my guess is not a huge jump in pixels but dramatic advances in the dynamic range and quality of the images coming out of the cameras. The built in wireless is logical...what sports photog wants to have that huge transmitter attached to the camera while shooting.
The 800mm 5.6 DO...at the same workshop it was pointed out how much money paparazzi get for photos. Every single one of them would buy this 800 add a 1.4 teleconverter on a 1.3 crop body and get a 1456mm lens with IS! Just me observations.
Hammerli wrote:
At $4K I'd probably consider buying it, but I'd sure want to see others experience first.
At $4k you better have a lot of work lined up to compensate for the expenditure. $4k is not sneeze in the dark. However, I think the unit would be worth it.
The problem I see occuring, is the increase in technology also seems to be making everyone giddy about the latest bells and whistles, while ignoring the market forces that will drive pricing. Few hobbiests and semi-pro's will look at a $4k lens. I only do 1-2 jobs a month and frankly, looking at a lens far beyond $1500 means adding work that I don't necessarily want to do.
I am not knocking the lens mind you, I just think they won't make something that they can't recoup the R&D on as well.
The dynamic range feature may be accomplished by automated HDR bracketing in the camera.
I do not expect an 800mm DO, though it has possibilities. I don't have any evidence, but I would be surprised if the two DO lenses in existence have been good sellers.
tsiphoto (forums.dpreview.com user name) apparently first posted accurate news about the Xti (400D) around 2 days before it was officially announced last fall... This user has very few posts at dpreview.com, and based on previous history it's probably more accurate then your typical internet user's posts. Although they did once claim 'video' in a MkIII, but recently stated that is not accurate...
Oh, they are claiming these details about the 1D MkIII
Edited by DynoMoHum on Feb 20, 2007 at 08:28 PM GMT
DynoMoHum wrote:
tsiphoto (forums.dpreview.com user name) apparently first posted accurate news about the Xti (400D) around 2 days before it was officially announced last fall... This user has very few posts at dpreview.com, and based on previous history it's probably more accurate then your typical internet user's posts. Although they did once claim 'video' in a MkIII, but recently stated that is not accurate...
Oh, they are claiming these details about the 1D MkIII
Edited by DynoMoHum on Feb 20, 2007 at 08:28 PM GMT
You guys are so ridiculous with your posts about your research on whether or not a poster has potential to be valid in their remarks towards new equipment. Seriously....what do you do for a living because clearly you have more time on your hands than I do, and I would like to free up my schedule a bit more.
jpegram wrote:
Few hobbiests and semi-pro's will look at a $4k lens. I only do 1-2 jobs a month and frankly, looking at a lens far beyond $1500 means adding work that I don't necessarily want to do.
I am not knocking the lens mind you, I just think they won't make something that they can't recoup the R&D on as well.
All 300/400/500/600 white superteles have the same design (amount of elements etc.), large weight (for handholding) and a hefty price of $4k or more. I don't own any of them, but I guess a large part of serious Canon bird & sports shooters own at least one, even if they are not selling anything.
I don't know how serious business Canon gets selling those lenses, but to me as an amateur they look like something worth saving after having bought all other lenses I expect to have real need. The cost for one of them is in the same ballpark as 1 or 2 family vacation trips to the Mediterranean/Caribbean/Thailand holiday resorts by 4 persons.
Koivulehto wrote:
All 300/400/500/600 white superteles have the same design (amount of elements etc.), large weight (for handholding) and a hefty price of $4k or more. I don't own any of them, but I guess a large part of serious Canon bird & sports shooters own at least one, even if they are not selling anything.
I don't know how serious business Canon gets selling those lenses, but to me as an amateur they look like something worth saving after having bought all other lenses I expect to have real need. The cost for one of them is in the same ballpark as 1 or 2 family vacation trips to the Mediterranean/Caribbean/Thailand holiday resorts by 4 persons....Show more →
Yes, but how will you explain to the wife and kids why they can't go on vacation for 2 years
Nowhere Man wrote:
You guys are so ridiculous with your posts about your research on whether or not a poster has potential to be valid in their remarks towards new equipment. Seriously....what do you do for a living because clearly you have more time on your hands than I do, and I would like to free up my schedule a bit more.
People are looking for some way to whittle down the onslaught of rumors and find some nugget that might be more believable than others, and 300+ pages ought to be plenty of testament that there are plenty of folks that are extremely interested in what's coming. People dissect bigfoot and alien JFK assassination footage for decades, and turn their livingrooms into exact duplicates of the bridge of the Enterprise.
timbop wrote:
Yes, but how will you explain to the wife and kids why they can't go on vacation for 2 years
There are plenty of things the family can do during vacations without travelling abroad each year, like hiking in home country. But my wife has her own job, and she is in practice saving for the holiday trips. However, we haven't travelled abroad with the whole family since 2005 for other reasons, and won't travel this year either.
My point is that for some of the hobbyists, even a very high price lens every 5 to 10 years might be financially possible to buy, even if it makes no financial sense to justify the purchase.
and or also known as the 'armpit of the USA'. But then, I'm sure they feel t he same way about Michigan and/or Detroit.
- Cleveland is that big city to the north where people actually have to pay to park their cars downtown. I tend to avoid it.
