carl_weller

I suppose the only sensible question to ask really is...

Puppy, does your wife have a sister?

There must be hundreds of photo.net people who would just love such an understanding

woman :)

Carrying on with the corn thing...

The comparison is slightly wrong as the 1D 'cornfield' is bigger than the 20D 'cornfield'.

On the other hand I think [but am not sure] that the size of the 'corn' on the 20D is smaller

than the 'corn' on the 1D.

The question is a) what is the 'corn per inch' ratio of both sensors and b) does smaller

'corn' mean more noise?

Ot put another way, print resolution is measured in dpi [dots per inch] and could logically

be directly translated across to ppi [pixels/photosites per inch] on the sensor. For two

chips of the same size, but a different MP rating, the higher MP chip wins. Different sized

chips? Then work out the ppi ratio. If you care about noise then think about photosite size

and the inexorable march of software routines as well.

And getting back to the original question...

I wouldn't worry about the old 1D unless money is a serious issue. Its not like the old days

when any camera got an instant image upgrade just by putting new film in. The thing must

be a couple of years old by now. DSLRs have totally moved on since then dude. You would

be buying a rock solid, highly desirable body with at least one generation old sensor and

software.

Sheesh man, it shouldn't be so damn hard with digital. I mean, really.

Put your shoes on, go down to the nearest decent camera shop grab all the cameras you

think you might like and take some pics. If you don't have a CF card, buy one, or just get

the pics burned onto a CD while you're there.

Go home and pixel peep, or get prints done, or whatever it takes for you to decide.

We shouldn't have to make up your mellons for you...

There are a bucket of them, mostly aimed at the mass market and almost exclusively full

of sh#t about new digital cameras with the odd short lens review chucked in [anyone

recognise pop photo?]. They seem more geared towards publicising and selling equipment

than anything else.

The best mags aren't all that into gear from my perspective, they're about photography.

Two of my favs are "Digital Photo Pro" [sadly only bi-monthly] and "Photographie" [latter is

German only].

regards,

Why even bother upgrading?

The 5 'aint exactly a pig of a camera.

As others have said, it won't improve your pictures much.

Those who haven't already gone digital [myself included] seem to be following the Puppy

Face route to happiness:

investing all their cash in glass.

This gives me a much better return and, when I run out of lenses to buy and/or digital

finally becomes sensibly priced, I will make the switch.

Sorry, but I just can't understand the economic thought processes of anyone who wants to

lay down a significant amount of cash on a film body anymore. If people just want an elan,

then sure, no problem, but a 3? Nah.

I do, however, kinda understand it if it results from a specific need, PC-itis, or straight out

nostalgic love for silver halide.

Camera bodies might be sexy, but lenses bring much more satisfaction.

regards,

What about the 5D?

It is FF with almost 13MP, significantly more useful than the 20D if money isn't an issue.

Now I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong [and possibly even if I'm not], but

resolution for any given film or sensor size is about 'capture resolution' which is a function

of the size of the photosites and the physical size of the sensor - just as high resolution

film has a much smaller grain than high speed film.

The trade-off then [with film] and now [with digital] is that noise tends to increase the

smaller the grain or photosite gets. No point having a 30MP sensor if the photosites are so

small that ISO 100 is high noise.

I'd be willing to bet that each successive canon DSLR will have better noise suppression

routines than it's predecessor. As the 5D doesn't actually have a forebear, I'd also bet that

the 5D has better noise suppression than the 1D mkII [or at least as good] and the

photosites are much bigger than the 20D [the same size as the 1D mkII actually] so that's

another plus and would also indicate that the noise performance will be at least as good as

the 1D mkII.

If you have the cash, the 5D has the best chances of providing the resolution you're after:

FF, big photosites, and high MP count.

That might be moot as you say you don't shoot over ISO 800 and you don't mention any

usability criteria, so maybe you should really just worry about the relative density of

photosites for each camera all other things being equal.

Take a look at Bob's page here

http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/digital/canon_eos_5d_or_20d.html

regards,

For $3000 you should be able to get:

20D

17-40/4L

50/1.8

70-200/4L

and still have money left over.

That'd be a very versatile rig, top quality, on a budget.

Take a look on this forum and fred miranda, the above lenses are generally admired and

lusted after by all.

With the above, don't even bother buying the kit lense, waste of money.

good luck.

The 16-35 is by all accounts 1% better and 100% more expensive.

If you don't have a wheelbarrow of wonga and the single stop is no problem, then its a no-

brainer really...

What sort of sad, shitty world are we living in when a $3000+ camera is "...a budget

camera anyway"?

I've never heard so much crap in all my born days...

The Rebel XT is a 'budget' camera [even though you can get an eos 3 for the same money]

and there's not much to complain about image quality wise for most applications. Sure the

interface is distinctly 'budget', aint got no argument from me there, but the pictures speak

for themselves. The 20D is better yet.

If the 5D is even just a bit better than the 20D its still FF, which, at the price, would make

it interesting in itself.

AFAIK canon is yet to release a DSLR that wasn't at least a good bit better than what came

before it.

All those pixel-peepers out there should at least have the common sense to wait for the

real deal before dialing in max magnification at warp-factor nine and viewing with a 27x

loupe from 5/16th of an inch :)

Sheesh, be patient. There might be useful reviews in 'bout a month.

regards,

Why don't you wait a little till the lense is actually in the real world?

I wouldn't expect useful reviews until at least October...

The internet is great for spreading rumour and innuendo as "facts".

You can be sure that for every person you read saying how they got a dud lense there will

be tens if not hundreds of happy people you don't hear from.

Take a look at most of the review sites. People generally write one after days or weeks of

owning the lense [well, yippee, they really know it well] and it is only based on unscientific

opinion.

You have a 20D. Why not just go in, take a few shots, a have a look. They'll probably let

you buy and return if you're not happy anyways.

regards,

I have quite a few MRC filters,

all the "normal" fitting B+W filters have the word "F-Pro" in gold letters on the side of the

rim and MRC on the front.

I also have a couple of B+W MRC "slim" fitting filters, but these do not have the "F-Pro" on

the side and are not marked MRC.

If it's not slim, and doesn't have MRC on it, then maybe its not MRC.

Who'd you buy it from?

Just bringing things back to the upgraders tale :)

Yup, totally agree. That is the natural consequence of photography merging with

consumer electronics, cameras have almost become 'disposable'.

Most people posting seem to plan for a new DSLR at least every 3-5 years. Sad thing is

they will happily pay twice as much for a digital elan than you do for an eos 3, and the

damn thing aint good enough for them practically from the day they buy it.

OK, I'll re-phrase that. I get the feeling that new DLSRs have the same 'new and shiney

warm glow period' as a new PC - about a week or so. After that the honeymoon is over.

It does start to look like most of the real useful stuff is there now [MP count, FF, etc] and

its just a matter of prices getting lower before the madness has an end and we'll get back

to the state where your camera is your best friend again instead of just your casual fcuk.

Nice too see there are people out there who think about the whole cost of digital too.

Apart from weenies who don't do math too well, on a per picture basis DSLRs generally

only pay for pros. What you get for your wonga at a lower level is fun and convenience.

I've managed to avoid just about all of that, happily building a huge lense collection.

Puppy, Mr '18 lense' man, you are my hero :)

thats my rant,

There's the other angle too,

for $1250 it is not the classic good value lense that the 4L zooms have always

represented. You can pretty much get both the 17-40/4L and the 70-200/4L for that!

At $600-700 with no IS or $800-900 with IS it would have been in my gear bag for sure.

For $1250, they can keep it. I won't buy a lense at any price, but will accept compromises

if it is reflected in the price. This is advanced amateur performance for pro pricing.

Look at the 70-300 DO, would also have been a cool lense if they hadn't gone absolutely

apesh%t with the pricing. Is this something we can expect from canon from now on?

As you say, there are a lot of compromises in this lense. It seems to be the jack of all

trades, but the master of none. At a more reasonable price I wouldn't find that too

onerous...

Andrew,

I started out with primes, didn't buy my first zoom until last year [17-40].

I have the 24/2.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 200/2.8 and am well aware of their special

benefits.

Years of using them also told me there are times when a zoom is just plain easier, and

with the L zooms the quality hit is not too significant.

The great benefit of the 4L zooms is their 'bang for buck' competitiveness, and $1250 for

the 24-105/4L is not even on the same planet, let alone in the same ballpark.

This is the lense so many 4L users have been begging for, but the price/performance ratio

seems way off. Too expensive for most amateurs and not fast enough for most pros.

At that price, I struggle to see what market the lense is aimed at.

regards,

If the street price is $1150 they can keep it.

Thats almost the price of a 17-40/4 AND a 70-200/4.

The whole point of the 4L series was quality on a budget, was it not?

Shame on you canon.

C'mon dude,

its only 6:05 in the morning in the states!

Press releases have been shown to be more effective when people are actually awake :)

It'll be ages before you can actually buy one anyways...

3rd party lenses have been known to have compatability issues in the past.

By and large they were fixed by the respective manaufacturer.

With digital, it may be that these issues get worse due to the really fast pace of

development.

If you're spending real money on lenses its worth thinking about the long haul.

I know that whatever camera body I am using is just temporary, but have spent a lot of

time and money getting lenses to last a lifetime.

You won't go wrong with either the two canon primes or the 17-40.

good luck.

You can't calculate price just on a raw exchange rate conversion.

Each market is different, and Canon obviously uses the 'what the market will pay' strategy.

The US is consistently cheaper than most places, and prices in the UK, Australia, etc have

no relation to what the selling price may be. From what I've seen, prices are at least 10

-20% higher than the raw exchange rate when converting from B&H prices to UK or

Australian prices.

And for those of you still stuck in the glorious past of $1US to $0.55AUS, get real,

$2000AUS is actually at least $1400US!

Just wait a couple of days guys. It'll all come out in the wash...

My understanding was that canon plans to move to just one pro DSLR, and that it will be

FF.

The 1Ds mkII would be fine for most with a higher frame rate.

If the 5D proves to be true, FF could very well be affordable for serious amateurs within

about 2 years and then who needs ef-s lenses except entry-level users anyway?

You're right though, there may be an intermediate step of a 1.3 crop 20D replacement

before that glorious day dawns :)

There are compromises made in any ultra wide angle, and especially a zoom, which is

always a compromise anyway.

Thats why so many people are still into primes, although the quality difference is not as

big as it used to be.

The 17-40/4 is a great lense, pretty much no more or less sharp than the 16

-35/2.8, and will deliver professional quality results.

If you ask the question "What is the best bang for buck lense combo I could get?" most of

us would answer "The 17-40/4, the 50/1.8, and the 70-200/4". They are all exceptional

lenses at very reasonable prices.

Your salesman is probably trying to push you towards the 24-70. Not surprising as it

costs twice as much. Never trust someone trying to sell you something for the obvious

reasons :)

If he were an honest broker, he would have told you much the same as you have heard

from me.

good luck,

If the rumours are correct, and they are looking to be confirmed one way or the other next

Monday, there could be one lense that may be the perfect walk-around lense for

discerning shooters...

the 24-105/4L IS USM.

Granted thats not spectactularly wide on a 1.6 DSLR, but you're not going to have that

camera forever anyways.

If canon can bring in a FF for $3500 now [the rumoured 5D], within another year or two it

will probably be quite mainstream.

Totally agree with your choices of 17-40, 50, and 70-200. You have obviously done your

research, but you might want to see what comes out next week.

Canon are rumoured to be releasing 35 new products.

regards,

Have a look at this link, top right hand corner.

http://www.photo.co.nz/

The press release seems to have been set up for 22 Aug 05, with a product release in

Oct 05.

Ties in with what my local dealer told me this morning...

...and looks the business.

Just something I found:

photo0101 wrote:

Hi there.

To take away the last question, here's how the CPS thing started. I've been reading

speculations about the new model(s) for some time and went to the CPS site to look for

some new information.

There I noticed that the URLs for the different issues were built up the same way (since it's

database driven) and only changed "issueId" in the end.

I think issue no 12 had issueId=100140, issue no 13 had issueId=100160 ... hmm ... what

could the next issueId for no 14 be I asked myself.

So there it was, I couldn't believe my eyes. Issue 14 with what seemed to be a temporary

starting image, but with new contents below. I tried to follow the links but with no luck.

Everything was pointing to nowhere (as often while in development).

So I posted the link at dpreview in the News-forum:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=14629994

Apparently a german poster saw the message and posted it locally some 5 minutes later,

which p5freak saw and posted in other forums on dpreview, soon followed by a screen

dump, and the discussion took off.

Within 40 minutes from my original posting the CPS page was down, later the whole site.

Was it a mistake or a new marketing "praxis" - I don't know. But I stay anonymous since

this actually feels like a mistake from Canons side and my intention wasn't to cause any

damage. For a planned marketing event I wouldn't think they would have the site shut

down this long - the point is already made (if so). It's of course possible some other

people started to hack the site looking for more specs. And it's also possible Canon

actually didn't know that this page was published and shut down the whole site just to

control no other information is unintentionally published before going live again.

And here we are.

And off I go.

And I won't post anything more under this name. Cheers!

And the link:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/266210/10

regards,

Sheesh!

Some of you folks won't be happy until canon releases a 17-500/1.0L IS USM for $700 by

the sounds of it.

Yes it is f4, IS doesn't work for everything, DOF is an issue, and it might be quite

expensive.

BUT it will still be a bloody useful lense for a whole lot of reasons [200 ISO makes it

effectively an f2.8 lense for speed, if you want amazingly shallow DOF you should be using

the 135/2L anyway, it will be smaller and lighter being an f4, it will be an awesome travel

lense, etc].

There 'aint no such thing as the perfect lense [except in the imagination of photo.net

addicts]. The glass seems much more than half full here.

A lot of us find this as yet unconfirmed new lense infinitely more exciting than the

rumoured 5D. Be happy. While canon practically showers us with new bodies, genuinely

exciting lenses are as rare as substantial tax refunds.

If it is less than $800 or so I'd be in.

regards,

For that money you could get two really good telephotos for a 1.6 crop DSLR:

the 50mm f1.8 [80mm effective]

the 85mm f1.8 [136mm effective]

Nothing will beat these two for quality at the price.

Otherwise you're stuck with the 2 75-300s or the 100-300 for zoom lenses. The 100-300

has a better reputation, but none of the three come near to the image quality of the two

primes.

regards,