matthias_meixner2

>Do you recommend any other extras i could get for the camera

 

If you want to shoot landscape or shoot in places with limited space, get the EF-S 10-22.

If you don't have any lenses yet, you might consider the EF-S 17-85 IS, or the EF 17-40. The EF 17-40 has the advantage, that you can use it on full frame (e.g. conventional film) bodies. However, I would make the decision based on the actual price you have to pay for the lens. E.g. I had two offers, one without and one with the kit lens, and the offer with the kit lens was about 40,- EUR more expensive than the one without. Therefore, I took it, since I have a 20-35 and a 28-105 and having the 18-55 means to have an additional lens with a convenient range, if you do not want to carry all lenses with you.

2 Possibilities:

 

1) your camera autofocus is misaligned

 

2) you switched off autofocus on the lens

>The 4/3rds format is based on a balance between *current* pixel density

>and yield. Pixel density is increasing exponentially, while yield is

>increasing linearly. This means that sensors will tend to get

>smaller.

 

You forgot physics. In 1/60th of a second only a limited number of photons hit the chip. And these are spread across the number of pixels on the chip. Therefore, the more pixels on the chip, the less photons hit each single pixel. If you crank up the number of pixels you end up in a situation, where it is unlikely that a single pixel is hit by more than one photon, so in effect turning your chip into a sensor that dithers the image in black and white.

 

If you want to have more colors, you need to spend more photons per pixel. E.g. if you allow up to 255 photons to hit a pixel, you may have 256 shades of grey (or about 16 million colors). So how do you make more photons hit a pixel? You have about two possibilities: Either make larger pixels (lower resolution) or expose longer

(low ISO rating).

 

These limits already show up in compact digital cameras as noise and

low ISO ratings.

 

Therefore, the only way to increase resolution while keeping low noise and high ISO ratings is to increase the sensor size.

No, it would not be redundant, there is a big difference between 28mm and 17mm.

 

But if you want to go wider, why would you care about the 70-200?

At the wide end the lens seems to have horrible chromatic aberrations in the corners.

 

BTW. the photos at the long end are not really helpful, since they do not show any structure but a blue face.

Canon is said to produce a fixed number of (digital) cameras and then sells them off and they won't produce new ones. So if the cameras are sold out, you have to wait for the next generation.

Since you are looking for comparisons:

 

Photodo (www.photodo.com) rates the Canon EF 20-35/3,5-4,5 USM higher (i.e. better) than the Canon EF 17-35/2,8L USM (3.4 vs. 3.2)

I have the 20-35 3.5-4.5. I cannot compare it to the 17-40, but I am very satisfied with this lens. I have read somewhere, that this is one of the best of Canon's non-L lenses, and this may be true.

 

So if you don't need the 17-19 range, try this lens, it should be much cheaper than the 17-40.

"film is history"

 

Not, if you are shooting slides. Tell my an affordable solution comparable to projecting slides. Video beamers are both too expensive and too low resolution.

"Will they get an error message, or an intresting noise as the mirror slaps into the back of the lens (probably followed by an error message for different reasons)."

 

AFAIK, there is an additional rubber ring, that prevents the use on cameras that don't support EF-S.

"I predict that the sucessor to the 10D - I'm going to call it the 8D for arguments sake, will be EF-S and EF compatible, of the build and feature quality of the 10D and with 8 megapixels. So '1x focal lenth' and hence wide angles will be available to the consumer and prosumer as already available to the pro with full frame. There will be midrange or 'L' EF-S lenses within 12 months."

 

I rather guess, that there will be a full frame version than an EF-S version, since even with EF-S you don't get rid of that 1.6x magnification.

 

And from marketing point of view, a full frame camera would fill the gap between 1Ds and 10D and give an answer to e.g. Kodak DCS Pro 14n.

I think the new 'short back focus' might be a temporary solution to allow for chear wide angle lenses to compensate the 1.6 factor of digital cameras. I don't think it gives any advantage for normal or telephoto lenses and therefore I don't think we will see `short back focus` telephoto lenses.

 

However as soon as full format sensors will become affordable (the 1Ds is too expensive for amateurs), the 'short back focus' lenses might disappear, especially since they are not really an answer for wide angle lovers.