In hopes of someone saving me the agony of scanning the 65 pages of this discussion..... can someone recap the serious, reasonable rumors of what Canon may announce as new products?
coppertop wrote:
In hopes of someone saving me the agony of scanning the 65 pages of this discussion..... can someone recap the serious, reasonable rumors of what Canon may announce as new products?
I recapped the various opinions, rumours and suggestions from previous threads right at the start of this one, 6th post of the first page. There is little to add to that info
Well, maybe that the 1Ds Mark III will have a foveon-type sensor. Other than that, little was actually new. There have been some very insightful posts here, but that's tiny little gems in tonnes of mud.
danmitchell wrote:
A though just occurred to me...
There has been an ongoing thread about negative associations of the number 4 in certain Asian languages, with the result being a belief that Canon would not identify a new camera model with this number - hence no "40D."
What about the existing "400D?"
Dan
I think it's just 4 that has the bad connotation because one of its pronounciations in Japanese is si (pronounced like "she") which sounds the same as the word for death. The common words for 40 and 400 are yonju and yonhyaku so there wouldn't be an issue. The pronounciation which sounds like death is only used for 4, not 40, 400, 104, or whatever.
What's the worry? It is a reasonable proposition, to move to a foveon-type sensor.
A bayer pattern isn't as efficient resolution wise. As the pixel density gets cranked up you get nearer and nearer to the resolving power of the lens. Moving from a bayer pattern sensor to a layered photo site sensor (which is exactly what a foveon sensor is) will postpone hitting that barrier.
200-500mm f5.6L IS under $2000
400mm f5.6L IS under $1500
100-400mm IS revamped to have a ring zoom instead of push/pull for under $1800
wishful thinking....
400mm f4L (IS or not) under $2000
500-800mm f5.6L (IS or not) under $4000
Battery Grip that would not only carry the two battery, have the vertical shutter but also have a CF card reader/writer for when the primary is full. Sorta like a secondary memory card location.
200-500mm f5.6L IS under $2000
400mm f5.6L IS under $1500
100-400mm IS revamped to have a ring zoom instead of push/pull for under $1800
wishful thinking....
400mm f4L (IS or not) under $2000
500-800mm f5.6L (IS or not) under $4000
Battery Grip that would not only carry the two battery, have the vertical shutter but also have a CF card reader/writer for when the primary is full. Sorta like a secondary memory card location.
I got news for you, the prices on your hopes are wishful thinking too.
ejpeiker wrote:
The name of the EF 400 f/4 DO IS isn't even written right. they left out the DO part in the text... What an incredibly stupid hoax.
I am not saying that the rumor is true, but come on, if you are dismissing it because they have a designation error in their web site (esp. on a page that's not officially "open" yet), you really need to get a better argument. Show me a company that has no typos / omissions / simply wrong facts on their own product pages.
Tentacle wrote:
Ok... sorry for this little off-topic tangent here, but what the $expletive is the problem with a push-pull mechanism?
Nothing on principle. The main reason I don't like it is that I use all my zooms' parfocal property: zoom in to focus, hold, zoom out to shoot. Now this is darn near impossible to do with a push pull. Not that I think that it would be very easy to make a 28-300 twist zoom
stanj wrote:
I am not saying that the rumor is true, but come on, if you are dismissing it because they have a designation error in their web site (esp. on a page that's not officially "open" yet), you really need to get a better argument. Show me a company that has no typos / omissions / simply wrong facts on their own product pages.
I counted at least six errors on that bogus page. Canon does not put out short pages with six errors.
The perpetrator admitted in this very thread that it was a hoax. Give it a rest, folks!
stanj wrote:
Nothing on principle. The main reason I don't like it is that I use all my zooms' parfocal property: zoom in to focus, hold, zoom out to shoot. Now this is darn near impossible to do with a push pull. Not that I think that it would be very easy to make a 28-300 twist zoom
That's only a theoretical consideration in this case. Most of the 100-400 users are having the lens on 400mm when stalking birds/animals, and the zoom stays locked there unless something very unexpected crops up.
Also, I'd bet you a nickel to a doughnut that many seasoned 100-400 users like its telescoping zoom action. Sure like hell it's fast when you need it to be. It clearly feels more natural to me than the 70-200 zoom action, (I have not tried Nikkor 200-400 f/4 yet )
[Tentacle wrote:
Well, maybe that the 1Ds Mark III will have a foveon-type sensor.
Yep, I already said I wouldn't mind that. I think it's the way of the future once the technology is tweaked and refined. Maybe Canon can be the ones who do that.
Peter Reesor wrote:
That's only a theoretical consideration in this case. Most of the 100-400 users are having the lens on 400mm when stalking birds/animals, and the zoom stays locked there unless something very unexpected crops up.
Actually it's not a theoretical consideration. I have the 28-300 and very rarely use it at 300, so for me this is an actual problem every time I use it. The question was phrased "against push-pull zooms", not "against the 100-400 zoom".
stanj wrote:
Actually it's not a theoretical consideration. I have the 28-300 and very rarely use it at 300, so for me this is an actual problem every time I use it. The question was phrased "against push-pull zooms", not "against the 100-400 zoom".
