This is the most ridiculous camera anouncement in history....What were they thinkin.....??? Take 650d change the name to 700d...Well I think we can all predict what features 750d will have.. 18mp...9 point af...
Well...I read the article...aren't they supposed to test the lenses with one single camera...Obviously the higher resolution of the d800 would result in higher quality and sharper images from any lens, not just 24-70.
I rented canon 24-70 II for a month or so and tried it on my 7D, while a friend had Nikon 24-70 on his d300. Comparing the images we took under the same lighting in the same conditions, the canons were way sharper than those from Nikon. Of course nikon 24 70 is better and sharper than Canon 24 70 Mark I. But the MKII is a differrent world. You can check out the comparison reviews in other websites. For one: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-70mm-ii.htm
Why is there so much negativity already...just because you think YOU wouldn't need the lens, you jump to the hasty conclusion that 'Canon has lost it'!? If you feel this Canon won't go into your gear that doesn't mean its production is pointless!!!
I beg to differ. I think Canon exactly knows what they're doing and they have certain customers for everything they plan and produce. As for the new 24-70 lens, I think we need to wait to see how it performs in real life...If it lives up to what they say it will be like, improved IS (hybrid) 0.7 macro capability, then it would make taking a macro lens with your midrange zoom totally redundant...not to mention if it shares the same optics of 24-70 II which by far is the highest quality mid-range zoom in the world, it would be totally worth it...
can't believe there is so much negativity about this Canon already. It seems you have all forgotten how the old 5d mii revolutionized the market with an only 9-point AF system and until the introduction of nikon d800 according to dpreview it stood as the highest image quality dslr in the market.
What many amateurs seem to ignore is that huge differences exist between a camera's specs on paper and how it handles in real life. When d800 and 5dmiii were out in the market, i shot both for around a month and i had many more keepers from my 5dmiii in terms of color rendition, contrast, and focus accuracy. I found miii much more fun to shoot with and much more photographer friendly. d800's menu is way to complicated to handle.
I suppose a multi-billion dollar company like Canon knows what it's doing. Let's wait till 6d is in the market then we can actually compare the cameras better.
I can't believe there is so much negativity about this Canon already. It seems you have all forgotten how the old 5d mii revolutionized the market with an only 9-point AF system and until the introduction of nikon d800 according to dpreview it stood as the highest image quality dslr in the market.
Way to go Canon....
HansW 007: I find it silly to give such a complex instrument an overall score - and even sillier to put any importance on that figure.
For example, I do a lot of photography in concerts. For me the reduced shutter noise of the 5D Mk III is most important, wheras I don't need more than 3 frames/sec. A sports photographer won't care about the noise, but will want 10 frames/sec.
I would also challenge the claims of many commentators here that dpreview favoured the Canon. Virtually all other independent tests done on comparing those two cameras give Canon a big advantage in the high ISO range department. And that's also my finding after comparing both cameras myself.Needless to say, you only shoot Raw with a machine like that.
I totally agree with you saying it's rather difficult to put a score on a camera. However, I should say I don't own any of them, but I've tested both. To me 5d III feels much better in the field than d800 which is the queen in the labs...