What are you most interested in from the new announcments?

<p>70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS<br>

Yes, if the IQ is better than the 70-300 DO I will be getting this lens. This also sounds like the last nail in the coffin for DO technology. DO required too much post processing IMO for that much money, just to get the image back to acceptable levels. I can't wait to see some samples of this new lens.</p>

<p>Nothing is all that exciting to me. The 1.4 and 2x MKii has to be a great improve ment to warrant an extra $200 each. Guess I will not be making any purchases any too soon. Still working on getting the 7D. That will suit my needs.</p>

<p>Luckily nothing! My 50 1.2 arrived yesterday so I'm nice and content...</p>

<p>I'm a bit concerned about this move toward all L lenses. I appreciate their qualities, I have 3 of them but I want them to make mid grade zooms or primes that are long overdue such as a 24mm/f2 or update to the 50mm f/1.4. The last non L prime they released was the EF-S 60mm, great lens, but this was more than 5 years ago.</p>

<p><em>I wondered when you'd mention that 400. Yes much lighter, three mode four stop IS with movable programmable buttons and the new TC's to match it. Sounds like the 70-200 2.8 IS MkII was the start of something.</em><br>

No complaints because of its performance but the biggest complaint about the 400/2.8 is its heft: you are pushing 18 lbs with a 1D body, mono and a rain cover, so nearly 30% of weight reduction is the most welcome development. But if the IQ and creature comforts can be improved (new lens hood...although I don't have many complaints many people dislike the lens hood mounting and reversing process on the current superteles) the better. IS is not really that critical on that lens because for most its uses even the lighter version is not handholdable. But the technology marches on so the more the merrier. Actually, its more like the 200/2 and 800/5.6 were the start of the "new & improved" for longish optics: light and lots of good things. If you think that the 70-200/2.8 II is good, try the 200/2...</p>

<p><em>Now all that is left is the 1Ds MkIV (...)</em><br>

Well, DSLR cameras do get updated often, by necessity (after all it is the camera and the medium in one...) but unless there is a breakthrough with 1Ds4, such as high-res <strong>and </strong>better DR <strong>and </strong>great high ISO performance <strong>and </strong>high fps, the 1Ds3 has everything I need in that kind of camera and I'm astonished by its capabilities even after 2.5 years of practice. </p>

<p>I agree about the primes but lately I see little reason to ever remove my 24-70. IS or not its a great lens. I may spring for one of the new tele converters.</p>

<p>I'm sadly interested to see if the 60d has wireless flash control like the 7d, even though I won't buy it. (I'm fine for now on the 50d). </p>

<p>Also, Im wondering if I should play w/ a new tc.</p>

<p>Before buying my 70-200/4IS, I might have bitten at the 70-300L. However, the interneal focus/zoom is really nice for nasty conditions (keeping dust/moisture out of the camera). At first glance the 70-300L seems very attractive for ordinary shooting conditions, with the compactness of the 70-300 non-L (non-DO). However, the 70-300 non-L was optically a very nice lens, and it appears to be gone now. (Am I seeing this correctly?) So is this new 70-300L just a sturdier makeover of the optically excellent 70-300 non-L for maybe twice the price or more?</p>

<p>Also, did the MSRP of the DO 70-300 just shoot to the moon while I wasn't paying attention? This all makes me rather nervous. Canon's big advantage over Nikon is the relative affordability of their excellent optics. Maybe Canon is closing this gap.</p>

<p>I have to admit the zoom fisheye looks pretty cool, but I doubt it's anything at which I'd throw the big wads of money they'll probably demand for it. I suspect it will still be better to have a circular prime and/or a diagonal prime. Any fl inbetween (e.g. a clipped-off circle) seems sort of silly.</p>

<p>It looks to me like Canon might be trying to squeeze photographers at the WORST possible time -- during a very trying economy when gigs are fewer and farther between. I'm not happy about this at all, and I think it's a very bad business move. Nikon is starting to look better, and if I were starting fresh (without any commitment to a lens collection), I'd probably start out as a Nikon photographer. I hate to say this, because I've been a very loyal Canon photographer since back in the FD days. If my gear ever gets stolen or destroyed, they might just lose me.</p>

<p>Faysal, I believe the 60D does not have wireless flash control I wish it did plus continuous autofocus for video, I would have purchased it for those 2 features alone. </p>

<p>The fisheye zoom will sell for about $1,100 (US) from what I read. I like it, but I'm not willing to shell out the cash for a while. My Sigma 15mm EX DG is quite good, really.<br>

Nice stuff, but nothing I'll be buying. I'm staying put for a while. Until they introduce that 120M 1Ds X I've been waiting for.</p>

<p><em>> wireless flash</em><br>

From the press release:<br>

(...) The EOS 60D's pop-up flash features a built-in Integrated Speedlite Transmitter for control of up to two groups of off-camera EOS Speedlites without the need for an external transmitter, providing an economical solution for multi-flash shoots.(...)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It looks to me like Canon might be trying to squeeze photographers at the WORST possible time</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand this comment. You don't have to buy anything at all?<br>

There are plenty of other reasons to buy Canon over Nikon, price is only one factor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3728023">Sarah Fox</a><br>

It looks to me like Canon might be trying to squeeze photographers at the WORST possible time</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you in the market for a new camera? If not they aren't squeezing you.<br>

Should the trickle down of technology stop with whatever version of an EOS camera you have?<br>

If you are in the market then this is one of the best value EOS DSLRs ever made. Value, squeezing, it makes no sense.<br>

There are not enough new features to make it a 'must have'. Quite a nice upgrade from any of the earlier rebels or xxDs.<br>

The fisheye lens has no place in my kit bag. Don't need. Don't want. Thus I don't feel at all 'squeezed'.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon is starting to look better, and if I were starting fresh (without any commitment to a lens collection), I'd probably start out as a Nikon photographer. I hate to say this, because I've been a very loyal Canon photographer since back in the FD days. If my gear ever gets stolen or destroyed, they might just lose me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, Nikon have taken the ethical route by not launching any new cameras during the recession (<em>note to self, must check this</em>)<br>

Don't quite see how Canon launching a new camera makes you want to abandon the system you've already built up.<br>

Want a decent body with more than 12MP? Price a Canon, price a nikon. See who is really getting squeezed.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3896539">Tommy DiGiovanni</a><br>

I wish it did plus continuous autofocus for video</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think that a contrast detection system would be smart or fast enough for video. Exsisting AF modules for camcorders aren't great, and with their much smaller sensors have a bit more latitude regarding depth of field. Clumsy slow AF coupled with the very shallow depth of field from a DvSLR is a recipie for amateur disaster, and this is a feature that would only interest amateurs (I mean no sleight by the word) I can understand Canons reasons for not making it a priority. If they were to devise a better system and fit it then the more serious / pro users could always switch it off.</p>

<p>I feel the implication of what Sarah is saying when she says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It looks to me like Canon might be trying to squeeze photographers at the WORST possible time</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For a budget conscious user who has committed himself/herself to a Canon body and at the least a kit lens (in the hope of gradually building up a collection), this means there is no longer a good affordable lens that goes to 300mm.<br>

Does canon expect such users to shell out the $1500 OR be content with the vastly inferior 75-300 lens (or limit one's reach to EF-S 55-250)? This is the squeeze!<br>

The only other option is to take a gamble and a loss in selling off Canon equipment and switching over to another manufacturer with no guarantee that they will not do something similar to Canon's marketing team.</p>

<p>Just saying I would like the option, I have a 5d2 for pro looking video and I need something that is easy to use for casual shooting. </p>

<p>Is it certain the old 70-300/4-5.6 IS is being dropped? B&H still has it for sale. They don't always drop older lenses, for example the 100mm f/2.8 non-L macro is still available.</p>

<p>it is no longer listed on Canon USA's lens line up page.<br>

<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup">http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup</a><br>

Whatever stocks the retailers have at the moment are going to eventually run out if it is confirmed that the non L lens is infact disontinued.</p>

<p>Sarah and Pavan, ironically and inadvertently, Canon is doing the budget-constrained photographer a favour when they release more expensive, newer versions of lenses. <em>The used market becomes flooded with the older versions, since there will always be a good number of people who will "upgrade," regardless of cost. </em>That's certainly been the case with the 70-200/2.8; there are copies galore listed on craigslist and elsewhere.</p>

<p>Here are the prices from Rob Qalbraith<br>

<a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10054-10884" target="_blank">http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10054-10884</a><br>

8-15 Fisheye - $1400<br />70-300L - $1500<br />300 f/2.8 IS II - $7000<br />400 f/2.8 IS II - $11000<br />TCs - $500 / each</p>

<p>Hmmm, the 100/2.8 non-L macro is also missing in that list, but it's still available. I would be pretty surprised if they discontinued the enormously popular 70-300 non-L.</p>

<p>8-15mm if it's reasonable —good luck with that.</p>

<p>I'm probably most interested in the 1.4x III. I bought a II a few months ago and don't care for it all that much and seldom use it. Perhaps the III won't degrade the image as much. Hope so.</p>

<p><em>> That's certainly been the case with the 70-200/2.8; there are copies galore listed on craigslist and elsewhere.</em></p>

<p>Yet the prices for the used 70-200/2.8 L IS in very good condition, in non-fraudelent sales, are often higher than the price paid new. High end equipment doesn't depreciate much.</p>

<p>I can only afford to buy used, so I'll be excited about these announcements in a few years when I can hopefully afford one of the super teles, secondhand.</p>

<p>That fisheye looks tempting. And the price is more or less acceptable. Can't wait to hear reports.</p>