Canon - Where sales are proportional to the number of negative comments on DPR.
This comment section is like an Anger Orgy. First world problems for sure.
Oh snap! Talk about something out of left field.
Sony should be out with theirs soon enough. :)
These photos look lifeless and nothing special (not photographer's fault, he's good!). At least to my eyes.
When I get around to reading the spec sheet and DXO scores they should look a lot better after that.
PhotoRotterdam: I have got a request for future video's. Please don't set music under people having a conversation. It is very hard to keep focus on the conversation. I know this differs from person to person, but I guess a significant amount of people will be distracted by it.
Kater. A 4:1 compression on the voices would help.
Rooru S: Alright! Time to make a new comparison between the Nikon 80-400, Sony 70-400 and the new 100-400. Previously, the Canon was no match for the new lenses, but this promises a lot! I'm not a Canon shooter, but I can tell this is a good thing for all brands shooters (Prices will definitely go lower)
Sony also has pretty bad quality control. I have heard reports of having to go through a lot of copies to find one in spec.
DVT80111: About time Canon but I won't cancel my Tamron 150-600 order.
400mm is no quite long enough for birds.
The Canon will likely be sharper and AF better with a 1.4 TC. It's more expensive so that is to be expected. The MTF charts show it is blistering sharp on the tele end!
JoEick: Funny how Canon always gets the heat from gear enthusiasts for not innovating. If there is any percieved flaw, then it is the doomed end of Canon, and there will be 2,000 comments about their lack of innovation.
Then when Canon comes out with possibly the latest and greatest lens designs and technology ever put into a consumer camera lens, there is crickets.
It was true 30 years ago and it is still true today. Lenses trump all else in what is truly important for a camera system.
If Canon came out with a 16 stop DR sensor and 16 bit RAW, people would still have the audacity to complain that Canon sucks because it took them so long or that 16 bit files are too large and heavy for your backpack.
Us photographers have finally made it to hipster nirvana, where no matter who is top in the game, they are not good because they are not the underdog. It happened to apple and it is already happening to Canon.
TKB, got me there.
Check... and Mate. ;)
love2travelfar: It took them 16 years to improve something everybody was asking to be improved. Imagine if that was introduced 10 years ago when Canon was EVERYTHING. People would be waiting, not sleeping for the announcement. Now - nobody cares much I'm afraid...
So, let's say you are running a company and your old product is still outperforming the competition and selling really well AND has paid off all RandD costs and tooling costs. The only logical thing to do is lose money making a new lens?
There is now more competition for a 100-400ish zoom, and Canon was finally forced to play its cards.
Don't blame Canon. Blame the other manufacturers for not making something better for equal or less of the price. They are the ones lacking innovation.
Funny how Canon always gets the heat from gear enthusiasts for not innovating. If there is any percieved flaw, then it is the doomed end of Canon, and there will be 2,000 comments about their lack of innovation.
Put the stupid camera video settings at their lowest and use that for voice recording.
I use this method when shooting landscapes to note filters, tides, set number, etc. And taking the type of landscapes I do is far more intense than shooting a football game. I don't get time between plays or a halftime. I'm out there working every second for several hours straight taking hundreds or thousands or shots and often standing in water with nowhere to put anything.
This article reads like "my daddy bought me a Mercedes and I can't be bothered to see why a Lexus would work just as well if I have to change my pampered life"
JoEick: This article is very misleading.
If the point of the article is to tell the reader how a 50-150 works similar on APS-C to 70-200 on full frame, then there needs to be more thought put into equivalent apertures.
You need f2.8 on crop to roughly equal f4 on full frame. The Fuji f2.8 zoom has no meaningful size or weight savings over a Canon 70-200 f4.
Until we see more f1.8 and f2.0 zooms for APS-C, there is nothing that compares in light gathering for full frame f2.8.
There is no free lunch when it comes to light, physics, and lenses.
Richard I get what you intended with this article, but I think the article could have been worded a bit differently to bring your point across.
I agree, a 50-150 f2.8 is better for APS-C than 70-200 F2.8 on APS-C to gain back the wide end of an important focal range.
The article comes across as saying you save weight and size by going APS-C over Full frame when using the heavy and large fuji lens.
Malikknows: Thanks much for this, Mr. Butler. You address evenhandedly a subject many of us are curious about. I do wish you had elaborated on your point here, though:
"The new lens I'm not mentioning here is the Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro. This is because, although in one respect it's a very similar lens to the other ones I'm discussing, its effect on a Micro Four Thirds body is very different."
I'd like to hear your view on exactly what that effect is.
It's equivalent focal range is much longer than a full frame 70-200. Its aperture is also going to limit light gathering to an effective f5.6 I believe.
This article is very misleading.
If we brought someone from 1995 to present time, what would they say about the complaints people have about the 7d2?
I remember what it was like shooting in 1995. Back then, even something like a regular 5Dc would have been absolutely universe shattering. 11 stops of digital dynamic range would be amazing compared to transparency film!
shawn in ak: Same trajectory as the last major Canon releases. All of the pixel peepers and gearheads will bash it on release but it will be an exceptional imaging machine once placed in the hands of the actual photographers it's created for: pro and semi pro wildlife and sports shooters. This is THE crop-sensor camera for those users, and along with the lenses, THE system.
Every Canon release since the 60D has been the same.
I'm glad Canon hasn't caved into the techno-crutch crowd.
I started with Canon 20 years ago because I liked their steady and sensible approach to building solid camera bodies and lenses that just plain work and don't deviate from what works.
GatanoII: - No wifi for controlling the camera remotely and/or wireless transfer to a tablet or a nootebook for instant remote backup and immediate image evaluation ...
- No touch screen for rack focusing , etc, etc ...
- No 4K and no articulated screen is a great loss for a video DSRL ...
- Low resolution for a camera that will last some years and today glass is already way "sharper" than this sensor...
If the price was lower and the competition less strong, it could have been a great camera, instead it is a camera for very few people, great AF module and speed, no doubt ... and than what? it's just a sport camera
Touch screen is not required when you can use the directional pad or joystick to move the AF box around and then perform video AF. Not as slick as touch screen, but still great especially if your shots are already planned out.
JoEick: Magazine editor: "Your bird in flight portfolio is horrible!"Photographer: "But the ISO 100 files I never take, can be pushed 5 stops!"Magazine editor: "You're hired!"
Magazine editor: "Your bird in flight portfolio is incredible!"Photographer: "Actually all of those high ISO shots were taken on a camera that can't be pushed 5 stops at ISO 100."Magazine editor: "Get out! And don't come back until you have a proper camera for the job!"
Somehow many of the DPR reader comments seem to live in this bizaro alternate universe where a pure action sports camera is a failure because ISO 100 may not be industry leading.
lol. I was expecting that reply. lol
cmvsm: Still don't get a camera's ergonomic design where one cannot turn the camera on and off with one hand. Even when Canon puts the switch on the correct side, one needs to move their thumb off of the pad to turn it on, which can easily lead to dropped cameras. This is the primary reason why I never bought into Canon DSLR's.
Yeah, that was a problem in what? the 1980's?
These cameras today are meant to be left on, at least Canon models are. You turn it off at the end of the day, not after every shot.
mantra: hi but is at least water sealed ?????
can't understand the choice of the sensor 1.6 , it's only good for sport (iso between 100 and 400) above..if it's like the 70d is not usable for me
a sensor 1.3 would be really awesome , the image quality of 1d mark III or IV is still amazing
i tried the 70D and r it's more noisy then the 20D :(
well ,i will wait the full reviewi was waitining for a 3d or even a medium format but...i will save my money
And what UWA lens would one use on a 1.3 crop sensor for a standard focal length (effective)?