abi170845: With sooo many canon zooms, what I need is a 14mmZomm f2.8 like the nikon, 85mm f1.4 and why so many primes with I.S 24mm, 28mm and the 35mm? I'd prefer a 50mm 1.8 with I.S.
SHEEEE! If canon will listen to you they will have an excuse to drop the 50mm f1.8 and make it with IS for some 450€ or more!!! o_O
If canon keeps like this i will be forced to CHANGE brand for real!!! ):(
(that said, an 50mm f1.8 with IS would be SOOO sweet!!! XDBut i'm still waiting for a 180-230€ EF-S 30mm f1.8 with a DECENT build quality! Since my 50mm f1.8 that i loved optically BROKE- 100% pure plastic!!! X(
rrccad: "The other interesting comparison is to Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR, which is the D600's corresponding kit zoom, and currently retails at a much lower price point (around £410 / €500). This is smaller and lighter than the Canon 24-70mm f/4, and offers a slightly longer telephoto range instead of the Canon's macro capabilities. It's hard not to see this being a more tempting option for enthusiasts looking into buying their first full frame camera, purely in price grounds (and with the option of upgrading to a better lens later)."
really has no foundation in this preview since canon could bundle with the 28-135 IS USM if they wanted a more economical kit. which at least according to some side by sides .. looks better than the 24-85mm nikkor.
Erik van den Elsen: I find this an awkward new Canon lens; I own the 24-105 F/4 L lens myself and find it very good, at least I have a very sharp copy. The current price of this 24-105 is now around 900 Euro.
So, why spend 600 euro more on a lens that has a much shorter range (24-70) but the same speed? Just because it has a Macro feature that you use every now and then? If you're really into macro, you will buy a dedicated Macro lens.
This lens sounds superfluous to me already from the beginning seen the rest of the Canon lens line-up and the range it offers... And this price is really rediculous! Much too expensive just like all other Canon lenses.
With all due respect: Give us a break!!!a 24-70 f4 can NEVER substitute an 24-105 f4!!!Especially if it has the same friging size!!!
I´m a canon user and i keep getting more&more disapointed!
Anything that makes M4/3 more complete and attractive is a very good thing! Competition is the way to go: Maybe when canon mirrorless system will look like the crap it is they will finally make some lens for it and price it cheaper then a dslr!Otherwise one day i will definitely change to M4/3!!!
Sam Carriere: Regrettable he was not asked about his company's strategy of "announcing" equipment which it does not actually place on the market for another 18 months or so. The question might have been: "Given your utter disregard and disrespect for the consumer, how much longer do you expect to be in business?"
unfortunately the answer would be: as long as SO MANY of you are willing to wait and pay for the "latest","hottest" things to show! :/In the past only computer&software manufactures could get away with really badly developed and incomplete things, nowadays a lot of camera manufacturers do just the same, and yes, i certainly mean the 2biggest ones!!!
Barry Fitzgerald: Disruptive technology = Ignoring usersD600= A99 killer, guess who will sell more?
Sony are way off base, lost the plot years ago and are too bone headed to admit SLT has failed big time
Barry Fitzgerald: i agree totally with your second post! I wish the mix between the best things from Olympus&Sony would become a force to be reckon with!!!I'm a canon user and more&more feed up with their lack of innovation because they think they are the biggest thing in photography! Just imagine an Olympus OM1D with a portion from the same sensor of the D800!!! XDOr a full-frame having a 24-70 f2.0!!! XD
we can always dream!!! ;D
OneGuy: Oh, nice interview if you read between the lines. Mr. Barna did not mention m4/3 even once. His 1" sensor advantage enumerations compare the 1" to the smaller 1.7" sensors. m4/3 is then class above his own 1" -- as far as bigger-is-better logic goes.
Very good point OneGuy!!!It would be very bad for his company and THIS ARTICLE if anyone would point that the already selling for many years "18-35mm" 35mm equivalent of m4/3 is just a small as a 50mm f1.8(or 30mm f1.8 in APS!), that would be a REAL killer to this all interview!!!
It+s a pity the infos here are getting less assertive and unbiased then in the past!
jorg14: I've been doing all this for years now on my windows laptop and at significant savings. Xnview is a free program that's an excellent picture manager. My usb port lets me transfer photos easily with no need for wi-fi (which has been hard to find while traveling) or to pay for more cards, and my 256gb hdd has plenty of room. All for $289 at Costco. And no, I don't have the retina display, but then neither do 97% of the people viewing my photos.
THANKS for the info!!! :D
philippei: Well....it will be not easy now to compare old models with new models...the spirit of this new test scene is close to the one used by french site focusnumerique, it will be worthlooking on both sites.
@philippei: THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!Thank you so very much for letting us know other site with aparently extremely good reviews!!! :D
mbk: This is actually a disaster unless you also keep the old test scene in parallel for sake of comparison. These test scenes are always just proxies, and that is OK. The ONLY purpose of test scenes is to compare across models. Their whole existence depends on not changing them. The larger the database with a single test scene, the more valuable it is. This is really important. It gives you a time line. It makes the past comparable. Including 'old 'standards is done all the time in science. NASA included a 1909 penny in the calibration set for NASA's current Mars Rover camera. If you change the test scene you diminish its only reason to exist because old models are now 'out'. DPR is the single one site where I can still compare how new cameras perform in relation to old "standards". I urge you to not take this away for marginal gains on resolution or such.
Resolution and noise are so overblown as a criteria anyway, what bugs me on current cameras is color rendition at higher ISOs.
TotallyFred has spoken extremely well to Barney@dpreview!!!We all come here to learn, giving non-answers doesn't go in that direction as dpreview got us used.I TRULY hope this is not already the second sign that dpreview is going down hill putting other (economical) interests in front of pure information for the readers!!! :(
That would be the end of non-biased information and the whole point in such a informative site!!! :(
Samuel Dilworth: More suggestions from the peanut gallery:
The old shadow box was good. The new one should be bigger and darker. Ideally it would be closer to the centre too, to avoid vignetting variations between lenses.
The shadow box is unimportant in the browser view, but it’s critical for pushing the raw files kindly provided by DPReview. Bigger is better, to reveal pattern noise: it doesn’t need to be wholly within the DOF to work.
The old scene had key objects strewn about the edges (watch, globe, paintbrush, martini logo). Thus it tested lenses more than sensors. Many errant conclusions about SLRs were derived from that watch face.
To avoid that this time, put more fine detail near the centre, and less featureless grey there.
The old scene revealed moiré in cameras of about 20 megapixels (but not above 30): http://tinyurl.com/8lggr2r
Something to reveal moire in the 10–100 megapixel range would be welcome, especially since anti-aliasing filters are passé!
I agree that the photos don't help much US readers since we have no idea of the original resolution of the print(foto-chemical? ink? and how many real DPI etc etc)Also the part of having a dark box to explore that subject(that for instance seems Really bad in EOS 5III, and much WORST versus Nikon 800! oposedly to what we would have expected/even wished!!!)But if Dpreview says it solves other important issues, let's hope so.Still, it's a pity they don't make it ALL better in one go!
jannefoo: This is good business... for Getty. The photographer gets pennies after Getty's 80% slice.
UNBELIEVABLE!!!FRIGG*NG ROBERS OF GETTY!!! ):(
Its EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that people like these readers share the TRUE AND UGLY REALITY, or people(like me in this very case!) will be mislead by this biased "news"!Until now, i though that Dpreview was an independent service, but when you share a supposed news while only saying HALF of the truth, well that is just publicity or campaign and NOT THE INFORMATION SERVICE That readers come here for!!!
so, THANK YOU VERY MUCH Valterj!!!And, for the very first time in my life: Shame on you Dpreview!!! :(From now on whenever i read something from you i will have to take it with lots of reserves knowing how biased you can be!It is a real pity!!! :(D preview was, at least for me, one of the very Best source of information!!!It is really bad and sad!
alex326: Very nice pan job!
It is so good to see Good photos made with simple equipment!!! XDI like it a lot!!!It's just unfortunate that if we see it big it looks a bit shaken(?)Still a Very Nice photo!!! :D
The sun was the tool, YOU did the work! ;)
boar: Please dear challengers,before entering read carefully the rules:"Must include the source of lighting"There are a lot of photos that are off topic :)We don't like to receive a load of low votes,isn't it!? ;)
I agree, but also number 5 has probably faked it: The only light it's showed is a fake(?) Really looks like digital manipulation AND it doesn't show in the model!... :L
The only light it's showed is a fake(?) :L