My point is that the glass's MTF is less of a factor on lower res cameras. When I had the 70-300IS, it was what I would consider "sharp" at 25% and good at 50% on my 8MP 20D. I wasn't worried, because I never cropped that heavily or printed larger than 12x18.
Why can't Canon come up with a good body/lens kit where buying the two is actually a good deal AND a useful thing to own? I have plenty of lenses, but remember the days when you could get a HIGH quality lens (like a 50mm f1.8 mk I) with your new body for a small price.
ghozer I agree with you but maybe we are naive and unsophisticated in counting on the goodness and kindness of others and/or just so easy to please? I must say tho that over the last 40 or so years any new Canon product that I've bought ever disappointed me and improvements always followed on in later models, whether in their cameras, printers, copiers, calculators...........
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Hmm my 40 does very well with action shots
It's all relative. Shooting polo with a 40D has been very disappointing - I gave up for the season until I get a new body (I went through too many 1DMk3's to ever trust that model). Also, I don't think the AF points (aside from the center) are much better than the 30D's - slightly but not in all conditions. They are not what I was expecting from cross sensors.
Why assume that just because it has 9 focus points, the the AF is the same?
Didn't many people learn, with the MKII to MKIII upgrade, that there's a whole lot more to an AF system than just the number of AF points? The 20D has the same number of points as the 40D, but isn't there a huge diifference in AF performance?
I just don't see how we can assume the AF is the same just based on the number of AF points.
hfillmore wrote:
Why assume that just because it has 9 focus points, the the AF is the same?
Didn't many people learn, with the MKII to MKIII upgrade, that there's a whole lot more to an AF system than just the number of AF points? The 20D has the same number of points as the 40D, but isn't there a huge diifference in AF performance?
I just don't see how we can assume the AF is the same just based on the number of AF points.
Because Canon said it was the same...
Did ever any one here think about focusing manually? Thats what I do 50-60%. Even when AF is on. I do not use lenses where I can not correct AF.
I think for the first tests IQ (espacially in in high Iso) is really more important than anything else. The AF will not be worse than it was with 40D. And that was excellent for a semipro.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Did ever any one here think about focusing manually?
Good One,
I'm a rookie starting out with my 1st SLR being a 20D. Ignoring manual focus is an easy thing to do for us noobs and this has been weighing on my mind for a while now.
I have started to do what I call bracket focusing to find what my hand eye coordination is doing. I shoot wildlife and need to be familiar instead of spoiled and hiking out of the woods when AF fails.
Still, it's going to be hard to wait for a 2nd firmware and the honeymoon prices to get real.
A POTNer was able to use his own CF card on a 50D at a Canon show, and took some great high ISO shots and some shots of the camera. Very interesting results!
ISO 3200 looks very clean. ISO 6400 also usable. I'm looking forward to seeing some more results. I'm REALLY looking forward to seeing the next FF high ISO's.
Turbodude says he is getting there early the next day to try out some more tests, however they might watch more carefully whether he is slipping in his own CF or not the 2nd day around!
Here's his high ISO shots on Flickr. You can download the large size and check them. I can see pattern noise in the 3200 ISO pics and definitely in the 6400 ISO pics. I hope they get this worked out before release date.
