Danny: Kind of scary that on a $4000 price-drop Canon is still making money on this unit..
The margin on manufacturing and distribution costs is always going to be huge. The problem is amortizing the R&D costs, and generating enough cash for R&D for the next model (and for the one after that, on which they'll already be working).
String: Its the reality of the world we live in; I watched my father (a carpenter) become redundant because they could hire kids out of school to frame a house for a lot less than paying a real carpenter. He would always laugh when people would say "what kind of carpenter are you, framing, furniture, etc". He would just reply "either you are a carpenter or you're not". He used to get rather upset when the "framing carpenter" couldn't even hang a door let alone build a piece of furniture!And that was 20 years ago... I guess the pro photog's should be thankful its lasted this long.
My comment now just looks weird after the offending comment got moderated away...
Wedding photographer: For me as Canon user:Portraits: It is very heavy compared with non IS 16-35/2.8 lens (especially together with other lenses in bag). IS will not help to short the moving people.Landscapes: No filters;For other systems/goals may be useful of corse.
Wow, 1.1 kg, that is heavy.
Haven't been able to find the spec for the weight anywhere, where did you see it?
JT986: Between the new and older 300mmf4.I love that the new one is much lighter and smaller.the big question for me is.Will their BOKEH be any different? New one better BOKEH?
PS - if you want to see what it looks like, search for reviews of Canon's 400/4 DO.
Plastek: Hehehe, 300 F/4 just when I was about to buy it. Great news :) Looking forward to see how pricing shapes, and some reviews to hear how it matches up against it's predecessor. I'm also very curious if Fresnel lens is causing any problems - from what I remember first Canon lens using them got some weird ghosting issue causing loss of contrast.
I have the 70-300 DO, with a fresnel element. The onion bokeh I've found a non-issue (hard to see in practice unless you go looking for it), and the loss of contrast is easy to fix in post. It does require that step in post as out-of-camera jpegs look a bit washed out, but otherwise very good image quality (resolution, chromatic aberration, distortion, etc). If the new generation of fresnel elements is better on this, could be overall excellent.
MPA1: I used to have the 300 f2.8 and sold it because I had no real use for it. I doubt I'll buy this version either, although I am sure it is very good.I never really felt that 300 was a useful FL - too short for wildlife and too long for most general uses.
I think the most common use is sports.
No, mirror lenses make donut bokeh, fresnel make onion bokeh. May be well controlled enough that it's not an issue.
If it has a fresnel element it's likely to have a bit of onion bokeh...
2eyesee: "...an extra wide angle 4x zoom that starts at 21mm equivalent - a focal length Casio says is optimal for taking self-portraits."
darngooddesign: You've heard of this thing called a tripod, right? The point is that "selfie" is the current slang for "arm's length self-portrait", as opposed to the traditional self-portrait where you set the camera down somewhere and use the timer.
It should read "arm's length self-portraits".
When you evaluate a camera for gold awards and such, it makes sense to evaluate the body in isolation. But when you make a purchase recommendation for a system camera, shouldn't you also look at the available selection of lenses?
Felix E Klee: In a professional context, for example for fashion photography in a studio, what is the advantage of a medium format camera today?
Today's full frame sensors and optics provide more than enough resolution for even very large printed ads, and dynamic range there is plenty as well. Furthermore, in a studio environment, I expect lighting to be perfect and the pro photographer to frame close to the final result.
For landscape photography medium format is interesting, but that's not my question.
This is a bit old but more in line with my experience:
I would be genuinely curious to see your results.
Voyrie: Where is the Sony RX100?
I expect there will be an update to the "high end pocketable compacts" roundup soon:
John _ Finn: Seems very strange that the Sony RX100 is not included.
I expect they'll have an updated version of this soon:
GWYNOXY: It is a sad day when a genuine heavyweight of the photographic world is ridiculed for copying Sony. Savvy Sony does not enter into such relationships without getting something in return ... maybe DPReview should research this and at least mention it instead of inviting the scorn with the glaring references to the grips (this is not he first time, Senor Britton). Oly got a mention with the medical deal with Sony. Hasselblad should be celebrated ... yes the Steller line is is a questionable business tactic but Leica have been doing it for years with the Panasonic clones and emerges unscathed? Maybe the secret is to change the top plate also ... then we wouldn't notice it that much? If I had the money - I would buy the Hasselblad in a heartbeat. The Zeiss lens is more historically aligned with them anyway.
Leica's Panasonics have around a 30% markup. Once add up the cost of the bundled software (Lightroom), better materials, better quality control (hopefully), better support (for sure), the price is surprisingly reasonable. Leica probably gets a very good deal from Panasonic on the cameras, as Panasonic has benefited a lot from using Leica's brand in its lenses. Oh, and the Leica version comes out right after Panasonic's.
Hasselblad, on the other hand, asks for 300% markups on models that are more than one full product cycle behind...
photogeek: Does anyone actually use the "DOF preview button", especially on APS-C bodies with tiny viewfinders? Why is it even worth a mention? You can't tell the effect in the viewfinder anyway, not to the extent that you'd be able to tell how sharp the background would be.
AshMills: it does depend on what lenses you use. The matte screen is better for faster than f/2.8 (brighter, shows the true depth of field so than you compose and focus correctly), worse for slower than f/2.8 (darker). The standard microprisms screen is better for slower than f/2.8 (brighter, so you actually see...), worse for faster than f/2.8 (relatively darker, shows depth of field at f/2.8 rather than at the lens' max aperture so you don't see what background blurr you're going to get making it hard to judge composition). If you mostly only use f/2.8 zooms and fast primes, being able to change screen is a definite benefit.
photogeek: that's generally true, but not so much for some high end aps-c models like the 7D, which does have a decent magnification ratio, even after accounting for the crop.
You can reassign it to something you find useful.
Picturenaut: To all those referring to DxO's bad ranking of the 7DII: just watch Tony Northrop explaining clearly why the philosophy of DxO's ranking system doesn't give any useful information about cameras such as the 7D2. He shows why the 7D2 is a really great crop camera in particular for sports and wildlife stills & video shooters:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTuBr0W0Zhw&list=PLwIVS3_dKVpsjSZrQ7H-Nw8GQ7ZuDYyaD
Btw my local camera provider (a pro shop) told me recently that the 7D2 is flying off his shelves, in particular a lot of videographers buy it.
BTW: For the suitability of a sensor for a high-end sports camera you mostly need to look at SNR in the mid-ISO range (which has zero impact on dxomark's summary score). The 7D does well there.
Their measurement data (if you know how to interpret it) is reliable and very useful. Their summary scores are near meaningless.