william_bray1

<p>When I bought my Canon equipment for me canon was offering the best options in lenses and bodies. But now With Canon's latest realises I'm getting a little tired of their technology being drip fed to it's customers , and it being the most expensive main brand of equipment out there.<br>

If I wasn't a pro and needed to buy Canon equipment I would be looking at the 5d mkII era of lenses and bodies, and hopefully in a few years this will turn full circle and Canon will be back where it was.<br>

I just hope they don't start to discontinue more of their good lenses with minor improved ones and major changes in the prices. </p>

<p>There is another review of this lens at, The digital picture<br /> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx<br /> If you look at the ISO 12233 crop at the top of the website page you can compare tests from different lenses side by side.<br /> To me the MkII has the edge wide open at the shorter focal lengths but at 70mm the MkI has the edge on one of the two copies tested. The differences optically are not that great , defiantly not as great as the price between the MkI and the MkII, and the ten years it's taken Canon to release a MkII.<br /> The short answer to " Is the MkII better then the MkI", is yes.<br /> But when you consider the price difference, plastic filter thread for a lens of this caliber, for me the lens hood design of the MkI was superior and unique, 82mm filter size, the bokeh of the MkI to me is better, The answer of "yes it is better then the MkI" becomes quieter and quieter in my mind.<br /> I have the 24-70 MkI and I won't be upgrading. I also have the MkI of the 70-200 2.8 IS and again the differences between the MKI and MKII of that lens wasn't enough to make me upgrade either, but the 70-200 is a different beast and the MKII when used with 2X converters is noteasbly better then the MkI so I would consider an upgrade to the MkII should I start to need a 400mm focal length. I won't be using converters on a 24-70.<br /> The only thing that could have sold the 24-70 to the majority would have been IS. Which the Tamaron has, the IQ of the tameron compared to the 24-70 MKII is equal in the centre but at the edges and at longer focal lengths it suffers, the MkI is still better overall.<br /> If I wanted IS I would get the Tameron, if I didn't have the MkI I would be trying to get one, even a good second hand one.<br /> As for me I'm keeping hold of my MkI, I've now had to insure the MkI for the higher price of the MkII because if anything happened to it I would be sick given the choice of the MkII price or having to settle for the Tamron.</p>

<p>I'm not saying Canon has made a bad decision, in fact Canon has got to where it has today by making the exact same decisions similar to the one we are discussing. It's a tactical decision.<br>

I'm one of the ones who bought the 24-70 MKl , and IS wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. But when a well respected and popular lens goes from £950 to £2400 and all they can offer is it's smaller, so they couldn't put IS in it, and at that price I don't care about how much sharper it is or how it handles flare better.<br>

With a 5dmkii and a 24-70 MKl I have cropped an image so it is a panoramic and printed it out at 32x16 inches, and it looks fine.<br>

Maybe things will be different when canon bring out it's high MP camera and the MKll lens shows it's real potential. But judging by the prices that Canon are asking now you can only imagine how expensive a new high MP camera will be and that to the price of the 24-70 MKii , ( even when the initial price will drop it's still going to £2000 at least) if I ever get to the stage when I might need such a set up, at these prices I would be considering medium format cameras even if it meant using film and having it scanned digitally if I had to.</p>

<p>I would like to hear your explanation why Canon has not listened to what it's customers want. All through out this thread people are saying, Why no IS ?, we don't need IS in a 28 or 24 prime lens, Canon has made a mistake, they've dropped the ball on this one.<br /> I have lost count of the amount of times people have asked. Should I buy the 24-70 MKi now or wait for the MKII because it'll have IS. Should I buy the 24-105 because I think I'll miss IS if I get the 24-70?<br /> These questions have been asked for years, anyone can see this with 2 minuets on a google search, and canon didn't know.<br /> If Canon brought the 24-70 MKII out with no IS and priced it sensibly, some will still say wheres the IS, but it's priced correctly in line with other manufactures. At the moment it is obscenely priced and the only thing that could remotely justify it is IS, which it hasn't got.<br /> And then they give us a 24 and 28 primes with IS for three times the price of the originals, and I've never heard anyone crying out for it.<br /> Canon will make a U turn and announce a high MP camera, at the moment they say we don't need it, but they have to get the lenses out there that can handle it.<br /> When you put 2 and 2 together you can see what is happening.<br /> Perhaps "screwing" is a bit strong for some peoples consumption, and would rather call it good business savey, or dumb luck. Call it what you will.<br /> All I know is a lot of people are left scratching their heads at the new releases from Canon and feeling disappointed.</p>

<p>Why Canon, why? Why do I have to turn to third party lenses if I want stabilization? <br />:-(<br /> Happy shooting,<br />Yakim.</p>

<p>Just trying to answer your question Yakim</p>

The reason canon hasn't put IS in the 24-70 is so thy can sell the 24 and 28 primes,

which has IS, to those who take video.

If they had IS on the zoom not many people would buy the primes.

It's another example of canon not giving It's customers what they want, and screwing

them so we have to spend more with them.

If canon did give us what we wanted it would be IS in the zoom and the wide primes

priced around £300, but there's more money to be made by doing it the other way.

I'm quite happy they didn't put IS in the mkii, because now there's no way I even

tempted to want it.

And I'm sure NIKON and all the 3rd party lens manufacturers are happy to , because

when people start to wise up to what canon are doing they'll be spending their

money elsewhere.

If this is going to become canon's future way of thinking maybe they'll regret it, and have

work hard to get their customers back.

<p>Abbas, <br>

I agree, you can't keep switching brands. One of the points of SLR's is that you customise you're equipment, lenses, flash etc, and that doesn't come cheap.<br>

Sometimes I wonder if Canon and Nikon are in league with one another, Nikon had a 12mp DSLR while Canon had a 21mp DSLR, now the roles have reversed. If Canon or Nikon had their way we'd either be switching every 4 years, or having a duplicate set of gear with Canon's name on one and Nikon's on the other, but thats the name of the game when your in business, and forum threads are not going to change that.<br>

I would love to have a 5D MKIII, of course it's a better camera than the MKII. But even if the price was lower I'd still be disappointed. Canon took the AF from the 1DX, did hardly anything to the sensor, took the toys from the 7D and put it in a MKIII body, and for good measure whack the price up another £600. When I'm paying this type of money on a camera I don't want a " well rounded camera" , " well rounded cameras " are for the xxxD or the xxD range. I want a camera thats aimed at a specific area and not sit on the fence. <br>

Everyone is entitled to spend their money on what, but sometimes it's like pulling teeth trying to get a reasonable response from people.<br>

If Scott had said, " you know what, it's not much of an upgrade, when you look at the MKI and MKII, but I need the AF and I didn't want to shell out for a 1DX." Ok, but to say two pro's couldn't wait to get rid of the most revolutionary full frame camera to come along, and then they couldn't wait to get rid of the most revolutionary crop camera to come along, is a bit much. What are two pro's doing with two enthusiasts camera as main body's anyway. On top of that keep defending Canon,"Canon hasn't put up the price it's your government", yeah but my government left every other camera company alone. Canon doesn't give two monkeys about anyone , except the colour of their money.</p>

<p>So what I have been saying are not "verifiable facts"?<br>

Anyone can see a massive improvement by comparing the 5D MKI and the 5D MNKII, and anyone can see not that much of an improvement by comparing the the "verifiable facts" of the 5D MKI and the 5D MNKIII.<br>

By the sound of it if Canon kept the MKIII the same as the MKII, and added a few bells and whistle to it you would be rushing out to buy that to.<br>

With the exception of sports or wildlife, if you can't take great photos with a 5D MKII, and you have to buy a £3000 MKIII to replace the MKII you already have, when the only real improvement is the AF,the problem is not the camera, but the person using it.</p>

<p>The pro's you know thought the 5d mkii was so bad they went out and bought a 7d, and after Canon disappointed them so badly with a 7d that they couldn't wait to get rid of it they buy the next camera from canon.<br>

If I were them by now I'd jump ship or buy a 1D series.<br>

You and I keep going round and round about this.<br>

You are still comparing canon to canon, the same as you keep comparing older canon to newer canon about spec, your doing the same about price.<br>

When the 5D mkII came out there was nothing that could touch it, video, 22mp. nikon's D700 couldn't keep up. Yeah you'll hear the Nikon boys go on about noise but seriously great AF or not would you want a 12mp camera.Some Photo stock website don't accept anything smaller than 8mp.<br>

The 5d MkII left the D700 standing<br>

We are in 2012, not 2007 the golden age of the 1Ds MKiii, or 1995. Now Canon have serious competition with companies that have manage to keep their prices below Canon's new line of camera gear, and they are also from Japan.<br>

If you can't bring yourself to look at anything than Canon to Canon comparisons, of 2012 specs and prices to 2007 specs and prices, please don't think the rest of us are blind.<br>

And by the way you like comparing older specs and prices. What about the 5D MKI and the 5D MKII, the price was high of the MKii, but what a massive jump in performance and resolution, Live view, sensor cleaning, 22mp vs 12 mp, professional video capability, micro adjustment, massive improvement in ISO. Not marketing tricks but an actual improvement in ISO and things that were only seen on the MKII.<br>

What have we got with the MKIII to justify the price ,AF, and everything else, all the gimmicks can be found on cheeper cameras.<br>

How do you like those specs.</p>

<p>Where I live the MKIII is not at the same price as the MKII was at launch. If you look back at previous threads about the AF of the MKII before the 7D , only sports and wildlife photographers wouldn't buy it. But Wedding photographers thought it was a godsend. So I don't know why all of a sudden they can't take photos with a camera that previously they were hailing as the wedding photographers camera.<br>

For me I think Nikon made the D800 and we know where we stand on what it's made for. As you said the MKIII is more of a better rounded camera. I'm not a sports or wildlife photographer but if I were I would welcome the AF performance on the MKIII, but the FPS is still not enough for serious sports or wildlife in todays market, and the shutter life wouldn't be up to it if it were. So where does that leave the MKIII, not a sports or wildlife camera as a landscape and studio camera it's got to compete now with 36 megapixel cameras.<br>

With the the 5D range Canon has this pattern-<br>

today they'll give you the sensor you wanted<br>

Tomorrow we'll get the body we wanted to go with the sensor we had yesterday<br>

After that a new sensor same body, and the cycle goes on. Canon listen to what we want and hold it back for three years, and when we get it we praise them for giving it to us.<br>

For me buying a new camera starts at image quality, thats No1 if there is no improvement there I wont be buying a camera on one feature alone at these prices.<br>

So at £2000 cheaper I would get the 7D, or if I were that seriously into sports or wildlife I would get the 1DX.<br>

As long as the 5D MKII is out there the MKIII is a jack of all trades and still only a master of one, and that "one" the MKII is also master at half the price.</p>

<p>Here is a link to my website, www.williambrayphoto.com<br>

If you go to the section, people, you'll see a few photos of a religious festival that I shot at night. the photos there are just a few of many, they were all shot with a 5DmkII with a 24-70 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8 IS at 6400. The lighting conditions were dreadful and I had to always shoot at 2.8, every one was marching through the streets, hardly anyone stopped to pose. I would say I got 80% of the shots taken in these conditions spot on focus, I don't know of the 20% that were thrown away how much was the fault of the 5D or was user error.<br>

I've reduced the resolution of all my photos for the web, so you're not going to see fantastic detail when zooming in, but I hope you see that I'm not making my claims up.</p>

<p>When you compare the mkIII to the EOS DCS, which only had a a 1.3 Megapixel CCD sensor and a price tag of £12,000 back in 1995 you are getting a bargain, how are Canon making any money from the 5D MKIII with 22 megapxels, they're giving it away.<br>

Wait stop, its not 1995 and its not 2007 when the 1ds mkIII was released. Why are you comparing yesterdays cameras to todays and saying we're getting such a good deal.<br>

Compare the MKiii to it's competition TODAY, the Nikon D800 and other equivalent cameras.<br>

The only people who could be seriously tempted by the 5D MKiii is those who were looking at the 1DX or those who have money to burn<br>

5D MKII + better AF + 2x the price = RIP OFF</p>

Yakim,

I used the canon 24-70 and the 70-200

2.8 is, with the filter on. I did this on an

overcast day. At first I didn't even

attempt to use AF, I didn't think it would

work, but before I packed up I gave it a

try. The center AF locked on surprisingly

fast, the outer ones hunted but locked

on to a good contrast subject. The

exposure was 30 seconds @ f18 and 200

ISO, so pretty dark.

I must say I didn't think anyone would

be still following this thread, and to get

responses so fast.

I've been keeping my eye on the 5d mkii

vs mkiii, on other sites and reviews, and

it seems that the improvements in ISO

are only in jpeg, and that's down to the

processor. In raw they are both

practically the same.

Has anyone seen anything to that says

different?

<p>Just Bought a B+W 10 stop ND filter, and on a 5D mkii it still locks focus. I don't know what the big deal is about poor AF on a MKII, as I said before tracking is another matter.</p>

<p>There're not that price second hand, the 5Dmk1 still sell for £700 second hand in good condition. I don't think there ever going to be below £1000, if they get any where near that I'll be surprised. The lowest I've ever seen them in the UK was £1450, at Park Cameras, that was in January 2012, then in the middle of February they shot up to £1680, when they had to get new stock from Canon. I assume your from the UK as you said "£1000", look at a website called camerapricebuster, it tracks all equipment, showing lowest to highest price.</p>

I have never experienced any problems

with the AF on the 5d2, but in critical

situations I only use the center AF point.

Tracking that's another thing. From my

experience , when shooting at 2.8 or

faster the centre AF on the 5d2 is

extremely accurate, the 7d which I

compared it to, while it was faster and

tracking was superb, using it where there

was shallow depth of field it gave

inconsistent results, and in low light I

never had problems with the center AF

of the 5d2. I only use fast lenses so I

don't know if the 5d2 has problems

locking on with slower lenses.

Thanks to the people who can see where I'm comming from, I was

starting to go mad. I'm not upset that the 5d3 should've been more

and the d800 offered more. The 5d3 offered more than the d700

except af, and this one is ahead one day, another tomorrow, will

continue forever. Unless you've got deep pockets can you have it all,

some professionals can't keep up with it , let alone enthusiasts. Take

NIKON, or Sony out of the picture altogether, It's canon's price rise and

the 5d3 is one small part of it. but its like banging your head against a

brick wall with some people. If we were talking about hovers, washing

machines, etc. This kind of discussion wouldn't exist, cameras are just

another product, another tool to get the job done, but for some

reason we seem to get emotionally attached to certain products , and

cameras are one of them.

What?

Brand Ferris

<p>Thank you Scott<br>

"Because they feel it is their best way to maximize profits, they need no excuse"<br>

So stop with all the rubbish about high megapixel sensors not being needed, and Canon investing in other areas of their development.<br>

And it's infuriating when you have to drag the truth out of someone who claims to be an adult, because of some misplaced loyalty they have to a brand. <br>

Yes Scott you do have brand loyalty.</p>

<p>As I have said, it is not the 5Dmk3, you seem to fixating on the 5D3 it is everything new coming from Canon. UK importers haven't bumped up the D800, Nikon 24-70, olympus cameras, sony cameras, fuji cameras, Canon have put their own prices up don't say it's governments.<br /> We're in March, and you're talking about waiting until Christmas! 9 months away for Canon to bring their prices down to a level where other products prices are at today. What do you think is going to happen to the prices from Nikon by Christmas. Are you serious? I really would like to know if you are, because if so, man you are loyal to Canon.<br /> Thanks for your comment but again you still haven't explained why Canon are putting up their prices compared to others, when they're not offering anything special. Because you can't, that would mean excepting the truth, and what ever your reasons are your not prepared to do that, you'd rather live in denial. I truly don't understand that it's not in me to feel patriotic to a billion dollar company, but it makes you happy to do so.<br /> We're going to have to agree to disagree.</p>

<p>What are you talking about I'm not complaining about devaluation, everything devalues, I'm not comparing a non existent 5D4. I'm saying to buy new equipment from a manufacture that you have been loyal to you have to pay more then the going rate, when for years customers have already been doing without features that other companies seem to be able to offer. But you live with it because you've already bought in to it, but now they want more money.<br>

Scott if thats the best you can do to "prove me wrong" your not doing a good job.<br>

My Canon equipment takes excellent photos I love my 5Dmkii, but this doesn't stop me accepting the truth about what Canon are trying to do now.<br>

If you blindly keep defending anything, and you can't bring yourself to be honest and accept the good with the bad, in the end no one will put stock in what you say. Nikon has it's faults, but I'm not discussing the whole Canon vs Nikon universe , only about Canon increasing it's prices on bodies, lenses everything, more than other manufactures.<br>

I was told by a company that Canon here in the UK originally wanted to price that 5D3 at £3200, but dropped it yo £2999.99.<br>

Please be honest and accept that this is happening. I don't mean this sarcastically , but if you or anyone can give a logical explanation why this is not about Canon trying on, I would really like to know.</p>

<p>Scott perhaps you have the money to lose tons of cash switching between Nikon or Canon but a lot of people haven't.<br /> Scott prove me wrong that what I have said isn't right, and explain why Canon has felt the need to deny it's customers features on bodes that were standard on other cameras. I put up with that because Canon's prices were equal or lower than Nikon. It has been said by quite a few here that Canon are raising prices for no apparent reason, please share with us why you think we're all wrong and why Canon are doing this if it's not for money, or at least share with us your "legitimate photographic reason" why you enjoy getting stiffed by Canon. Canon's purpose in this world is<br /> No1 MAKE MONEY,<br /> No2 Make Cameras.<br /> Canon spend millions each year studying the market, working out the strategic time to realise their product, thats fine it's business , but look after the customers you already have and don't take them to be fools.<br /> Wipe the pixels from your eyes and wake up.</p>

<p>Thank you for shedding light on the problems of high resolution sensors. I now see that Canon's new policy ( actually I think it"s been around for a while now) of offering less for more is for our own benefit. For all these years when Nikon offered superior AF in a lot of their cameras, and didn't just keep it for the top of the line models, while Canon reserved this basic feature only for the 1D's and remote flash control was standard on all Nikon's models with a pop up flash. While all Nikon's full frame DSLR's worked with all their lenses, cropped, new or old, I didn't understand until now.<br /> I thought Canon were being tight, that we had to buy new EF lenses to replace our old FD lenses, that we had to buy, not just any flashgun, but a top of the range flashgun, or a speed light transmitter to achieve off camera flash, or until the 7d arrived we had to remortgage our homes to get a camera with up to date AF.<br /> And now Canon doesn't want to give us more megapixels in case we hurt ourselves with them. Now I see the danger of a lot of evil megapixels I'm sure Canon won't endanger the human race with a high megapixel camera, and Canon doesn't want to creep into the medium format sales, and tread on the toes of other companies because they're just to darn nice. The new 24-70 and the other new primes, which are capable of higher resolving power, are being produced because they're bored at Canon, and are not paving the way for a high megapixel camera to be released after the 5D3 has sold a few thousand.<br /> All this time I've been wrong it's had nothing to do with squeezing more money from it's customers.<br /> They've really had our best interests at heart, I feel such a fool.<br /> Sorry Canon</p>

<p>"I'm glad that Canon directed their energies to improvements (lower noise, better AF and metering) that will benefit most photographers most of the time."<br /> Something Nikon has done for years, provided great AF, and low noise.<br /> It's like Canon thinks it just invented the wheel in this aspect, now it's discovered that photographers want low noise and a good AF system,(God knows we've waited long enough for Canon to catch up with Nikon regarding AF) we now have to pay extra for it.</p>

I wonder if the the situation was reversed and canon brought out a D800 and it was NIKON who was selling the 5d3 for £700 more. Would

the people who are defending canon now , would they then in that scenario, be wishing they had the opportunity to by a 22 mp camera

because they don't need 36 , and you have to work too hard to get the best from it. A poorer built camera, and the privilege of paying £700

more for it. I doubt it, we would now be shoving it in the NIKON users face. D800 users don't have to use the full resolution of their camera so I don't quite understand some of the comments here.

That was a very good point that Bob made about 7d users. Canon will bring out a high megapixel slr, remember when NIKON insisted that

a lot of pixels wasn't needed they changed their tune on that. Give it 6-12 months and you'll hear about a 5dx, or a 3d with a 46 mp

sensor , and then everyone will be saying how they need it now , but I dread to think how much it'll be . Chasing dslr's is a rich man's

game, and if it continues like this I'll always be buying them once they're reaching the end of their shelf life.