Ummm... no print button? C'mon Canon, you can do better than that!!!
Wishlist for the 80D: TWO print buttons.
acidic: I just noticed the weight. 810g for APS-C lens? Holy Shatner!
Okay, I know it's super fast and all that, but if it's seriously supposed to convince FF shooters to go APS-C, it's measly 2x zoom range isn't helping any, considering that it's FF counterparts don't weigh much more and have closer to 3x zoom range. Of course if it's significantly cheaper, say in the $900 range, it could be a winner.
Yeah, I know that they can't be small with such (relatively) large apertures. But honestly, if this lens costs $2K and weighs as much as it does, why would someone choose a crop body and this lens over a FF body and a 24-70mm/2.8?
I acknowledge that this lens has more light gathering ability at a given FOV (than 24-70/2.8 on FF), but given that a FF body is easily 2 stops better (with regards to noise), the advantage goes to FF. Not to mention that this lens damn will need to resolve more lpm due to smaller pixels than it's FF counterpart.
Of course, if it's in the $900 range, this lens makes total sense.
I just noticed the weight. 810g for APS-C lens? Holy Shatner!
Time to play guess the price.
justinwonnacott: I really want to see an option to customize the interface so that instead of drop down (scroll down forever . . . ) tabs it was possible to use horizontally tabbed menus or to "tear off" the RAW develop module so that it operates on a separate screen by itself.
When I use ACR module the layout is easier to use and does not require constant downward navigation and the annoying opening and closing of arrowed drop down tabs.
There is much that is good about LR's interface but this issue drives me nuts, slows me down and has me using ACR standalone quite often instead of the fiddly, small interface components provided in LR for the same task.
..... and another thing I really want is the ability to not just import to two drives but to see the changes I make, keywords, processing instructions and so on be writable to both of the copies I imported in the first place. I would love that.
Try solo mode:http://help.adobe.com/en_US/lightroom/using/WSD7BD0F8A-12B6-4064-99BA-2D844172C124.html
If you're drives are dedicated image drives, and you keep all of your changes withing LR (not sidecar xmp files), you can point LR to either of those drives and I believe the changes will apply, as long as the file names are the same across both drives.
Otherwise, configuring a RAID mirror will ensure that both drives are identical (changes, new files, deleting files, etc). Still not substitute for a real backup drive though.
hexxthalion: another forgettable gray plastic box from Canon - why do they bother?
because they make money from such gray plastic boxes.
itsastickup: I'm seriously not understanding why people are comparing this APS-C camera to m4/3.
m4/3 still has serious bokeh issues: too much depth of field even with large apertures. Unless you go off-piste, you can't get a normal lens with any kind of decent ability to obliterate the background. And no, I don't want t a Nokton 25/.95, or whatever it's called. APS-C isn;t as great as FF of course, but it's still workable.
You also don't get Canon's bokeh king zooms. I looked at other systems and either they have not enough OOF bokeh or like Sony and Nikon they have have poor bokeh zooms.
There is no system out there that does what Canon APS-C cameras do.
Of course, if you don't care for such a thing as very limited bokeh then it's a non-issue, but it's still an issue for the rest of us and so it's not correct to directly compare this system to m4/3. There is no direct comparison (yet).
You don't understand what bokeh means. Bokeh is subjective quality, not something there is too much of or too little of.
You're obviously referring to depth of field, which bokeh is NOT inversely related to.
It's even lighter than the OM-D! If they could only make some small pancake primes in EF-S mount to go with this...
You know, if Canon could make a few more pancakes but limit the mount to EF-S for compactness, they might be on to something here. The 40mm STM is fantasically small on my 5D2. If there were even smaller EF-S pancake primes in 20mm and 60mm ranges, it could make for an interesting kit for those already invested in EF gear. If I weren't already heavily invested in m4/3 gear (in addition to Canon FF), then I would certainly consider jumping in.
maxola67: It's less the Panas-GH3!What's next Canon step relating to lenses size?I remember Oly made the same mini- DSLR(e-420) with no success.
While its mount can take FF lenses, it also takes EF-S lenses specifically made for APS-C. Still bigger than m4/3, but considerably smaller than lenses for FF.
I'm so glad I come to dpreview to read the "news."
This is not wedding photography. It's bridal photography, staged and all that. No different than a glamor shoot or senior portraits, logistically speaking.
I've been using my 90mm TS-E to shoot portraits since around 2005. Either I'm 8 years ahead of the times or dpreview is 8 years too late. Or maybe it's a combination of the two.
rurikw: It's nice that they still come out with these old wysiwyg things in spite of pp.
With regards to tilt, sometimes it's all about speed. For example, shooting at with lens tilted to increase DOF will allow one to shoot at wider f/stops. Think flowers on a windy day. Another issue is diffraction. Shoot f/22 on FF and you'll get mushy results. Shoot f/11 with a properly tilted lens and you might not.
As far as shifting goes, sure you can correct for perspective, but you will effectively throw out some pixels and interpolate what's left on one or more sides of the photo, resulting in a loss of resolving power.
For those who think T/S lenses are all about throwing focus off in part of the image, this effect can be simulated in post, but it's not necessarily the same. Try doing that with a complex scene with many subject elements at various distances and in various parts of the frame and you'll see what I mean.
People (photographers) need to learn to differentiate between editorial photography, which must represent reality, and creative works, which don't necessarily have to.
As long as the creative photographer isn't trying to fool anyone with such composite imagery, there's nothing wrong with it. It's basically just another genre of photography/visual art.
JohnyP: all of these "theoretical photographers" who sit in front of a monitor defending rights to their non-existent works of art is quite funny.
Abandonment of the copyright for all works posted on internet should be instituted. Patent and copyright trolling is a waste of everyone's time. This is the only way to make all these trolls switch to something else (hopefully more productive than arguing with people on-line over something).
^ China mentality.
Photato: Canon, bring the 70D with a 8MP sensor. Great for low light hand held and of course video.
WRT pixel density:8 MP APS-C = 21 MP 35mm FF
So if an 8MP APS-C 70D comes out, you can expect noise performance comparable to a cropped 5D3 or 6D.
Due to evolution having reversed course, humans -- er... I mean chimps -- have stopped using incident light meters.
acidic: Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots).
Also, the studio comparison tool for this camera is jacked up. Move it around the image and the zooms are not the same crop as other cameras.
Sexy, but no thanks. For this price, I'd expect Superb sharpness all the way into each of the four corner pixels.
@peterwrSucks bad compared to other FF cameras. D600 and Sony A99 corner sharpness will suck too, with poor lenses. But at least you can stick an excellent lens on those bodies. Not so with the RX1.
@TrojMacReadyI'm comparing it with other FF cameras. I understand your point about different focal length and distances, but I'm not going to bother downloading the files to compare the EXIF on each of the files. Regardless, the softness looks like it's due the lens softness, not DOF issues.
Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots).
Back in the day, I had a catalog of film scans of out of focus lightboxes exposed to a middle gray. Blank 4000dpi scans from Velvia, Provia, Kodachrome, Ektachrome made up my film grain library. I found myself often adding grain to my dSLR images via layer in Photoshop for my clients. You see, in the early days of digital photography, I still had many clients who thought digital images looked too artificial and sterile. A bit a grain and curves/saturation adjustment always did the trick to make the photo look more realistic. Also, heavy handed WB adjustments were to be avoided. Photos obviously taken in open shade should have still had a bluish cast, otherwise it looked fake. Funny how things change.
Now it's time to move backwards ;-)