Canon Just announced the EOS-1D Mark III

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
Yeah, I don't much see the point of the 20D-30D-40D series for most
users. I'd go 400D - 5D or EOS-1-whatever.

Yes that's my take too, the 20D/30D are not really what I'd call a
professional camera anyway, and the 30D is looking like a joke against the
400D for the extra asking price. The 5D OTOH fills a completely different
requirement, and is far more useful for a Pro or semiPro.

I'm much more interested in hearing about the 5D replacement.
I think you will be waiting a bit longer for that. I think a
1DSmkIII will surely be first.

Possibly.

Probably. The 5D still holds it's own, and hasn't had a long enough run yet
compared to the usual model production life.
Unless Nikon brings out something similar of course :-)

MrT.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

110 (!)large fine jpegs...non-stop at 10fps is amazing (30 RAW).
Bill Hilton and Roger (who just returned from Africa) are likely drooling
more than those lions did, over that yummy zebra...

Hey Mark, you're right

I just saw the link on dpreview this AM and my first thought was "I
wish they brought this out 2 months earlier" and my second thought was
"do I get two or just one?"

Bill

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Skip wrote:

That's an interesting camera. I'm not sure I'll be able to wait
until the 5D or 1Ds mkII successors are released. My wife is excited
about the self cleaning sensor. Live preview is interesting, too.
The new 16-35 f2.8L II is interesting, too, but with an 82mm front
element, filters are going to be expensive. It should, however, take
care of the light fall off and softness in the corners that the
present version has. (Take that, Rita!)

Hey, I'm hoping it will knock the Nikon 17-35/2.8 straight into the dirt.
If it performs slightly better than the Nikkor it will be worth whatever
Canon asks. This is very exciting news for everyone.




If it really does the job, and with an 82mm front element, it should, I'll
probably sell my old 20-35 and maybe the present 16-35 and get one. We'll
see about price, too, though. Too high, and it might not be worth an
incremental improvement.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

Notice the biggie: 14 bit ADC. That IS a biggie assuming
all the bits show up in the the raw files.

Doug McDonald

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...

This also has me wondering if they might come out with a 100-400
replacement at f4...using an 82mm front element as they gather more light.
If they release a sharper 100-400 (or 200-400 f4), I'll bite.

How do you plan on making 400mm focal length at f/4 with less than 100mm
diameter?

Since the clear area of the filter is considerably less than the thread
size, at least a 105mm filter would be needed. Don't forget the cheque-book
when ordering your polarizer for that one.

default wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...

This also has me wondering if they might come out with a 100-400
replacement at f4...using an 82mm front element as they gather more
light. If they release a sharper 100-400 (or 200-400 f4), I'll bite.

How do you plan on making 400mm focal length at f/4 with less than
100mm diameter?

That's just me showing the limitations of my familiarity with those physical
requirements, there. Someone else can explain in detail, I'm sure, why I'm
wrong (or why it's possible?).

Since the clear area of the filter is considerably less than the
thread size, at least a 105mm filter would be needed. Don't forget
the cheque-book when ordering your polarizer for that one.

Yep.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:10:20 -0800, Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote
(in article ):

C J Campbell wrote:

10 fps, live preview, APS-H sensor, 10.1 MP. I like the noise
reduction for shadows; I see no mention of anti-dust. :-) New lighter
body -- plastic? No, magnesium alloy.

Really big LCD screen.

Looks like Canon is introducing the ultimate 'chimping' rig. The 3" display
is going to be the key feature for chimpers worldwide. Of course you will
always get some malcontents that will criticize Canon for not incorporating
a 7" chimping display.

That would be the new Canon large format 4x7 digital camera. :-)

You are fighting a losing battle, Rita. Chimping rules!

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "Mark?" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
default wrote:
"Mark?" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...

This also has me wondering if they might come out with a 100-400
replacement at f4...using an 82mm front element as they gather more
light. If they release a sharper 100-400 (or 200-400 f4), I'll bite.

How do you plan on making 400mm focal length at f/4 with less than
100mm diameter?

That's just me showing the limitations of my familiarity with those physical
requirements, there. Someone else can explain in detail, I'm sure, why I'm
wrong (or why it's possible?).

f number is the ratio of aperture width to focal length equivalent for
an idealized lens. The numbers only get worse from there. When
you see "f2.8" that really means "1:2.8". For an ideal 400 mm f 4, the
minimum aperture would be 100 mm.

-alan


--
Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Skip wrote:

Hey, I'm hoping it will knock the Nikon 17-35/2.8 straight into the
dirt. If it performs slightly better than the Nikkor it will be
worth whatever Canon asks. This is very exciting news for everyone.

If it really does the job, and with an 82mm front element, it should,
I'll probably sell my old 20-35 and maybe the present 16-35 and get
one. We'll see about price, too, though. Too high, and it might not
be worth an incremental improvement.

The larger front element should really destroy any light gathering
problems
and keep distortion down to a minimum. I think we should see a hell of a
lot more than an incremental improvement. I hope this turns out to be the
must have WA of the 21st century. I wouldn't be concerned about price
since
a great lens is worth paying for. We shall see.




If it is as good as anticipated, and remember, the 50mm f1.2 wasn't, a price
at or under $1600 would be the trigger.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"Skip" wrote in message
...
If it is as good as anticipated, and remember, the 50mm f1.2 wasn't, a
price
at or under $1600 would be the trigger.

Trigger for what? Pro's and serious amateurs are willing to pay FAR more
than that IF the lens is worth it.
(and sometimes even when it's not :-)

MrT.