Cane: One would think Canon would just buy out Magic lantern, or their engineers, and put this stuff into their camera's to begin with? I know, crazy thought to make a product to max out it's abilities, when someone else can just take your product and make it better for you. That doesn't make you look foolish, does it?
well you have to take a look at it this way .. ML add on - if it screws up your camera .. oh well. don't use it.
If canon software engineers screw up the firmware - they are obligated to fix it.
It's alot easier for ML to rapidly implement features and release code because they are only working on released cameras, with a very limited ... well, zero warranty.
@MediaDigitalVideo .. everyone does it .. do you not think most cameras could have additional feature sets if someone hacked the firmware and improved it?
slncezgsi: So even if the Zeiss lens is a bit better optically and mechanically, both lenses are superb and it is matter of personal preferences and purpose to choose one over the other.
Seems like there is no bad choice to be made here :)
Impressive showing by the 135L 2.0 against the newly developed for digital Zeiss.
I do believe it's canon's oldest L lens came out in 1996, 17 years ago - when high resolution digital cameras were just in bond movies.
Unremarked is that it's still one of canon's fastest AF lenses.
davidonformosa: Canon needs a few more pancake lenses to go with this body. Surely it wouldn't be too hard to modify the EOS-M 22mm f/2 to fit the EF-S mount. Also if they want to really take the business away from the MILC sector they need to re-engineer the zoom to make it more compact.
it would be an entirely different design to account for the registration distance change.
Photato: Without mini lenses is kind of pointless the effort to make it small.Would have been nice to have a 22mm pancake to go with this, like the EOS-M has.The only really small lens, the 40mm pancake, doesn't cut it for the EF-S bodies like this one for general photography.
Too bad Canon decided to remain stagnant with the sensor. I was expecting them to start moving towards larger pixels.
the 24mm IS, 28mm IS, 35mm IS, 50mm 1.8, 40mm pancake, 18-55 EF-S and even really the 55-250 EF-S are at the last time i checked .. pretty small lenses.
TrojMacReady: Interesting to note that say a 28-300 Nikkor ultra zoomlens on a D800 is able to keep up with/beat a 28mm F2.8 *prime* on a D3S in terms of final image resolution. Simply because of the extra pixels making more out of "average" lenses too.
So much for the theory that 36MP only give benefit with a handful of top end lenses.
you're comparing pixel densities from a 12mp sensor to a 36mp and surprised?
diminishing returns on higher Mp cameras, which should come as no surprise.
even more diminishing returns if you don't shoot test charts, because the only real area of improvement is in your plane of focus.
Greg VdB: "The Tamron looks like a very worthy competitor, offering impressive image quality, image stabilisation and weathersealing all in one package, and we aim to assess it fully in the near future. But quite simply the Canon offers such exceptionally good optics that, if you're after the very best, there's simply no other choice."
No doubt the Canon is a great lens, but untill you have fully tested the Tamron (or refer to external comparisons), that last sentence is incorrect and sounds a bit like fanboyism...
again .. very nitpicking a very exclusive category of shutter dragging (which btw, they did prior to IS/VR)
usually lens sharpness, ca, bokeh, AF speed are far more general statements that can be made.
heck, it's a pretty bad macro too.
the review mentioned that the tammy had VR.
it also has sluggish AF, and some issues with canon bodies.
how exactly would image stabilization have that much effect on concert photography considering ISO is more important, and shutter speeds would for the most part be higher than 1/focal anyway to reduce subject motion blur.
Josh152: The thing people are loosing sight of is that a radio station deals with copyright, licensing and advertising all the time. They knew what the law and industry standards are for this type of thing. They obviously knew what they did was wrong even as they did it. The radio station was just playing the odds that the photographer would never find out and lost. Then they try to offer an insultingly low amount for using a image that for that type of add campaign. It's like they dont' understand there is a differnce in the price and value between some guy off the street who is just happy his work is good enough be used in this manor and a real pro trying to make a living.
Both parties should have been more professional about it though. If you can afford it it is probably best to contact a copyright violator through an attorney and the radio station most certainly should have used an attorney to communicate and negotiate once they were accused of the violation.
how do you know this Josh - do you have inside knowledge that upper management in the radio station said .. copywright be damned?
could have been an intern that just made a mistake in grabbing a photo off the internet. it happens all the time. people make mistakes.
interestingly enough, did HER clients sign a release allowing her to sell commercially their images?
considering these were wedding photos.
Fatality: She wasn't rude, she was angry that some scumbag stole her work and used it for commercial purposes, to make money out of her work!
Photography can be very expensive -shooting location, models, hairstylist, makeup artist, light assistants, props, dresses etc etc... and when some scumbag offers you 40$-160$ for your work when he gets caught, is just pure insult!
What's even worse, is having your work associated with incredibly cheesy or tacky product/service.. Imagine a McDonalds clown wearing a Gucci dress or Ducati brand on some junk bicycle from China.. Such use lowers the value of the artist and their work. The way they used her photo, it looks as if it comes from a "Joe's DVD Clipart Collection".
that "scumbag" was probably just a intern or other employee of the station rushing to meet a deadline that screwed up.
I find it odd how people equate this to the station's responsibility llike the station owner went out and stated .. please steal someone's photos for this ad campaign.
LeonXTR: Beautiful lens but Canon's €2K pricing policy (24-70 II,70-200IS II, 14mmII, TS-E17mm II etc..) puts many of the newest models out of non-professional reach.
but it's supposed to be a professional lens ... wouldn't pricing and making it as good as it gets for professionals be the primary consideration? o.O
Henry M. Hertz: at least when canons MP monster camera arrives in 2014 canon user will have the optics to make real use of it.
lens rentals showed it to easily outresolve canon's current sensors, it should no problems with a higher MP camera.
what i love most about this lens is a complete lack of PF.
Scorpius1: I bet canon is preparing for a high res body,this lens in combination with the 70-200mk2 would work like a charm on a 40MP body,I used the 24-70mk2 for about 2 weeks on a 1DX,lighter and faster AF than mk1 with few CA's and nice that the street price is coming down now,I prefer the new filter size too.IS is rumoured to be on the way which will appeal to wedding and journalist snappers..
lol stu.. got a serious hate on in this comment section don't you?
Roland Schulz: Hmm, maybe I'm wrong, but why is this all blue in the review?? This lens is soft like a pillow, see in the river shoots at f8! Somewhat sharp in the center but completly butter off center.By the way I'm a Nikon user, not that happy with the extreme corners of the 24-70 2.8G, but what I see here is nothing I would accept.
BTW2: The review from IR is not that all positive, nor the diagram is.
from a sharpness, CA, and distortion aspect - every review has it better than the nikkor .. which is understandable - it's a 5 year old lens now.
interesting how nikon users have to feel afraid of competitor's lenses.
the Nikkor is a excellent lens, but i have yet to see a review that has it better when compared within a reasonable standpoint of side by side better than the 24-70II.
the published MTF's show the 24-70G falls off alot at 70mm - alot more so than the 24-70II - where you see the published mtf's to be far more consistent for the II versus the G throughout the range, which outside of QA issues - seems to be the case with the 24-70II.
this is really reflected in just about any side by side comparisons.
quickly looking at the comparison, wide open from 24mm to 70mm .. the original 24-70, nikkor, sony/ziess, tamron, sigma .. all simply aren't as good.
hardly say it's fanboyism when you can compare yourself and see they are speaking pretty factual. from CA, sharpness - the II is best in case.
even as a photographer, i've had web clients accidentially get caught by this, and it can be a horrifying experience for a small business owner who innocently grabs some images that are supposed to be copywrite free and later on the photographer contacts them demanding thousands of dollars for a mistake.
in one case, the photographer asked for amounts well in excess of $20K and the image was found and downloaded from a royalty free image library.
So there seems to be two sides of this case, as a photographer, i don't want my images used without my knowledge, but on the other hand, it's a little ridiculous at the amounts being tossed around as proper compensation.
To be honest, the more this happens, the more "professional" photographers become a dying breed.
mariuss: There is for sure no coicidency that this news is comming right after Aptina/Sony news.Its good to know that Canon is continue researching on sensor tehnology but the question is, will Canon use this tehnology in any other DSLR-s? And how about DR at low ISO? From my understand, this shows that Canon concentrate its research on High ISO tehnology and not in high DR at Low ISO.
actually it is a coincidence, it was announced at an appropriate trade show.
not everything canon does revolves around DSLR sensors or even DSLR imaging.
"The company is looking to such future applications for the new sensor as astronomical and natural observation, support for medical research, and use in surveillance and security equipment."
and lo, announced at a security show.
this is intriguing .. doing some napkin maths .. .01 to .03 lux is somewhere around -6 to -8 EV .. correlating that a bit more .. that's around ISO 500K to 800K at a reasonable shutter speed of 1/60th and aperture (F1.4).
from an astrophotography aspect being able to take a very short video clip, stack and drizzle it up to 2x2 the size .. which such sensitivity would be amazing. usually the video astrophotography is limited to brighter objects ie: planets.
Klindar: This sort of problem is wide-spread in the industry. Canon has recently reported almost the same thing for a couple of its DSLRs so I doubt anyone will avoid the issue by brand hopping. Mt D800 has remained perfectly clean but my Panasonic LX5 has oil spots and - no way to get in there yourself. A colleague with an LX5 also has oil spots too. He didn't notice them in his pictures until I pointed them out. Now he is miserable.
This is the digital camera's Achilles heel. With film you get a new sensor surface with every advance. With digital stuff just accumulates.
recently? you mean back in 2009?
oh look how canon handled it .. think there would be much angst / comments if nikon did the same?
Micky Nixgeld: Further more, I never heard that they use oil in cameras. They use a special grease which is quite a different thing, and even IF they did grease a little too much, they´d do it with a few and not hundreds of cameras.NO! I think the main problem with this camera is a bunch of extremely envious Canon users who are constantly trying to degrade Nikon. (There are several postings who ad 6D for example). And that´s why I´ll stick to Nikon. The probs with D600 will soon be solved. Whatever the REAL prob is.Period!
they would also lose more money by issuing a statement that actually puts blame on where it should be - on them.
why are you so angry that you have to turn it onto a "fanboy" QQ fest?
this impacts the entire industry .. if someone purchases a DSLR and has a bad experience, odds are they will go to a mirrorless or just decide their camera phone is good enough.
so this isn't a nikon versus canon but something that really reflects on the entire industry as a whole.
dust randomly gets placed on the sensor - correct. splatters sampled from dozens of different bodies show it almost to be in exactly the same spot .. body independent .. want to calculate the odds of that occurring in nature?
and i'm sure shouting will help .. i mean that really goes a long way to prove your maturity :)
really? that's why lensrentals even commented that after every D600 went out it had to be sensor cleaned after being returned to lensrentals unlike any other camera that they carry?
even dpreview commented on the issue (are you saying their are biased to canon?) and even in the article states they have repeated asked nikon for their position on it.
soon be solved? even in your nikon forums, there's question over what is being solved by nikon support - just cleaning or are they actually fixing something.
blaming it on users of other cameras is pretty weak. even moreso than this service announcement.