If the Canon 5D is real...

In article ,
Stacey wrote:

Steve Franklin wrote:

I agree about waiting.

Yea I was thinking about buying a pentium 100 win95 machine 10 years ago,
I'm so glad I waited till the P4 2.8's came out, what a waste buying that
P100 would have been!

Amen sister. These guys are being duped by marketers. Bigger, better,
faster. Whatever.

I think Pentax will surprise us with
*ist D and *ist DS replacements at the spring PMA show. The *ist DS is
discontinued, replaced with the *ist DL.


They should suprise us with a decent name for whatever they bring out.
*ist! That is one of the dumbest names ever for a consumer product.

In article ,
"Steve Franklin" wrote:

And as for your example it's flawed.

I bought a dx4100 just before the release of the pentium series and had I
been more informed I would have bought the pentium as it represented far
better bang for the buck and was a quantum leap forward from that dx4100

While I get your point, it's important to try and get the best gear at the
time and for those that have not yet purchased then perhaps waiting for
something like the 5D (should it exist) would be prudent.

And as for the sarcasm...keep it to yourself thanks...

what's with all the attitude toward Stacy? Her point (I think) was that
there would always be something better around the corner.

My point is that there is nothing better around the corner. Think about
that before you jerk your knee into your nose.

Peace.



"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Steve Franklin wrote:

I agree about waiting.

Yea I was thinking about buying a pentium 100 win95 machine 10 years ago,
I'm so glad I waited till the P4 2.8's came out, what a waste buying that
P100 would have been!
--

Stacey

In article ,
nick c wrote:

Bart van der Wolf wrote:

"Rox-off" wrote in message
news
There are going to be a ****-load of unhappy 1DMkII owners!


A bit unlikely, IMO.

Most 1DMkII users probably need the speed, and ruggedness (e.g. weather
proofing, more shutter actuations before it wears-out), and the
battery-life of that model. The slightly smaller than Full Frame images
also transmit faster and consume less storage space. It's intended for
an entirely different users group.

Bart


I agree.

I'm very happy with my 1DMKII.

Of course you are happy. You spent $4000 on the the thing. That is an
expensive mistake to make, no less admit.

And yes, I know, "you are really happy with it".

"Rox-off" wrote in message
news

The specs of the camera don't interest me. What does is the sensor. Full
frame is very important to me.

On the other hand, I have no desire to go full-frame; I don't see the
attraction. The minor benefits don't interest me compared with the
problems that will likely invalidate half of my lenses. I really hope
Nikon figures out how to stick with 1.5x for the long haul.

I hope they do bring out a full-frame digital some day. What I hope they
don't do is have a knee-jerk reaction and bring out a product that is not
up to the usual high standards that Nikon have just to play "catch-up".

I'll wait...


That's probably one thing you don't have to worry about. Nikon has shown
over the years that they are conservative, and won't rush a product to
market ahead of time just to meet market pressure. The only exception to
that may be the 80-400 VR lens, which came to market without AF-S,
subsequent lenses include that feature. Canon, on the other hand, in their
self appointed role as technology leader, does, sometimes, get a camera out
there and let the public serve as beta testers for them. The 20D is case in
point, with the problems in the first couple of months of production, since
emphatically solved.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"nick c" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:
"nick c" wrote in message
...

Dave R knows who wrote:


Off the top of my head I would think it would interest old pros with old
glass who don't want to deal with magnification issues, and a few of us
newbies want their fisheyes to be 180 again. Like you said, niche. And
it has niche pricing to go along with it!

Dave - Wilt,

Both comments are sound. There's a great deal of merit in what you both
say. My mind hadn't traveled down the 'already have fast, old glass road'
that can be used with FF digital cameras.

Along that line of thought though, I wonder how serious a concern should
be given to having fast, old glass lenses. I can understand wanting fast
lenses in a lens inventory, but that was with cameras that had set ISO
speeds. Stepping into the digital world, I think it best to re-evaluate
old habits and thoughts concerning lenses. Dslr cameras are not
handicapped by fixed ISO speeds so instead of stocking a costly f2.8 lens
why not go one stop slower and if shooting on automatic, let the Dslr
select the best ISO and F-stop for the scene or if going aperture (my
preference) select whatever ISO speed that suits the f-stop intended to
be use. I was once going to buy the Canon 16-35 f-28L lens until I awoke
and said to myself, I've been doing great with the slower 17-40 f-4L lens
in areas I once thought the f-28 speed would be highly advantages. I
found it was old habits that were driving me.


One reason is depth of field, the f4 still won't get as shallow as an
f2.8.

A point made, Skip. But at 2.8, the tip of a nose may be sharp while
eyeballs would be on the edge of fuzzyness.

True, but that depends on distance from subject. And, if the light levels
are too low for an f4, then the image doesn't get done, does it? ;-)


The other is noise. Even with the strides being made in controlling
noise at higher ISOs, it still does increase the higher you go. So, if I
can use my 16-35 f2.8 at 100 ISO instead of a 10-22 f4.5-5.6 at 200 or
400 ISO, I'll do it.

Mum's the word, on my part. Another point made that I can't opinionize on
'cause I haven't made comparitive tests (using the 1DMKII) to see
different effects. I guess I'll have to cede the point made.

That two stops at the long end of the wide angle lens could be telling...



Dave - Wilt, believe me you fellows make sense if concern was centered
upon using old fast glass. But lets assume a new digital FF comes in at
about $5,500, at that price I do think it best to re-evaluate and
consider the advantages of selling old glass and using lower cost new
glass, one f-stop slower with variable ISO changes.


But if the rumored 5D comes in at $3500, as, again, rumored, it becomes a
viable alternative, if it is indeed full frame, for those of us with
extensive inventories of what Stacey calls "legacy glass."

Put an order in for me. I don't have old Canon glass but I'll give it a
shot, if the camera checks out. Old glass is easy to get.



And then there's my 15mm f2.8 Fisheye, which shows virtually no
distortion on my 20D. On a full frame, I'd get the full 180deg. diagonal
and the distortion for which I bought it.

I'm not into Fisheye, soooo ya got me podner.

Fisheye lenses can be used for so many things... (Caution, nude...)

http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/onefishtwofish.html
(Shot on film with a Canon 1n.)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

kz8rt3 proves it must "suck to be him":

Of course you are happy. You spent $4000 on the the thing. That is an
expensive mistake to make, no less admit.

And yes, I know, "you are really happy with it".

Yeah, and you are just someone who doesn't own a 1DMkII and can't
stomach the thought others do and are enjoying themselves, perhaps even
profiting from it. Can't stomach it, and can't even admit your
jealousy either.

Of course, "you are just envious of it".

SMS wrote:

wrote:

Anyways, it's clearly a conspiracy. Canon leaked the document just to
provoke online discussion and hoping to find out how much people would
actually pay for the thing in advance of the formal release. Maybe we
should be petitioning our Elected Representatives for a law about this
sort of thing? The leak will also damage sales of Nikon's D2X, so
perhaps Nikon needs to file a lawsuit. Those *******s at Canon need to
_PAY_ for their sickening malfeasance!

I agree. In the U.S. we should be petitioning the FTC for an
investigation. Canon is paying people to take their cameras, which must
violate some law. Furthermore, Canon is almost as bad as Microsoft in
terms of a monopoly, since they have the only low noise, professional
D-SLRs, as well as the only professional full-frame cameras on the
market, and they charge very high prices for them because there are no
alternatives.

Canon should be forced to add noise at higher ISO speeds, and to
artificially reduce the frame size on their full-frame models, until
other manufacturers can catch up with them.


More "independent advice" from the master of distortion,
Steven M Shill.

IMO, 1DmkII owners will be ****ed only if the 5D has 45 AF points, 8 fps,
integrated grip and weatherproofing.


....and I'll be happy if it's a 1DMkII in a 'non-pro' body at a lower price
and a few newer features, just like the EOS3 was compared to the EOS1N.
Disappointed at 9 AF points (unless they are very small sensors) and no
multi-spot metering :O(

Skip M wrote:
"nick c" wrote in message
...

Skip M wrote:

"nick c" wrote in message
...


Dave R knows who wrote:


Off the top of my head I would think it would interest old pros with old
glass who don't want to deal with magnification issues, and a few of us
newbies want their fisheyes to be 180 again. Like you said, niche. And
it has niche pricing to go along with it!

Dave - Wilt,

Both comments are sound. There's a great deal of merit in what you both
say. My mind hadn't traveled down the 'already have fast, old glass road'
that can be used with FF digital cameras.

Along that line of thought though, I wonder how serious a concern should
be given to having fast, old glass lenses. I can understand wanting fast
lenses in a lens inventory, but that was with cameras that had set ISO
speeds. Stepping into the digital world, I think it best to re-evaluate
old habits and thoughts concerning lenses. Dslr cameras are not
handicapped by fixed ISO speeds so instead of stocking a costly f2.8 lens
why not go one stop slower and if shooting on automatic, let the Dslr
select the best ISO and F-stop for the scene or if going aperture (my
preference) select whatever ISO speed that suits the f-stop intended to
be use. I was once going to buy the Canon 16-35 f-28L lens until I awoke
and said to myself, I've been doing great with the slower 17-40 f-4L lens
in areas I once thought the f-28 speed would be highly advantages. I
found it was old habits that were driving me.


One reason is depth of field, the f4 still won't get as shallow as an
f2.8.

A point made, Skip. But at 2.8, the tip of a nose may be sharp while
eyeballs would be on the edge of fuzzyness.


True, but that depends on distance from subject. And, if the light levels
are too low for an f4, then the image doesn't get done, does it? ;-)

Flash Anyone?

Just kidding Skip. It's just that I haven't run into that problem .....
yet.

I considered getting the f-2.8 lens before I bought the f-4 but was very
dissappointed in the barrel distortion at 16mm. When I tried the f-4 at
17mm, I still saw distortion but as I recall, it wasn't as bad. That's
not to say, or otherwise convey to you the impression that the f-4 was a
LOT better, it wasen't. It just didn't seem to be as bad. Shrug ... if
at any time I find myself in need of the 16-35 f-2.8L lens I'll get it.
Meantime, I just ordered the 24-70mm f-2.8L lens from B&H.



The other is noise. Even with the strides being made in controlling
noise at higher ISOs, it still does increase the higher you go. So, if I
can use my 16-35 f2.8 at 100 ISO instead of a 10-22 f4.5-5.6 at 200 or
400 ISO, I'll do it.

Mum's the word, on my part. Another point made that I can't opinionize on
'cause I haven't made comparitive tests (using the 1DMKII) to see
different effects. I guess I'll have to cede the point made.


That two stops at the long end of the wide angle lens could be telling...

I guess it's like having insurance. If needed, it's there.



Dave - Wilt, believe me you fellows make sense if concern was centered
upon using old fast glass. But lets assume a new digital FF comes in at
about $5,500, at that price I do think it best to re-evaluate and
consider the advantages of selling old glass and using lower cost new
glass, one f-stop slower with variable ISO changes.


But if the rumored 5D comes in at $3500, as, again, rumored, it becomes a
viable alternative, if it is indeed full frame, for those of us with
extensive inventories of what Stacey calls "legacy glass."

Put an order in for me. I don't have old Canon glass but I'll give it a
shot, if the camera checks out. Old glass is easy to get.



And then there's my 15mm f2.8 Fisheye, which shows virtually no
distortion on my 20D. On a full frame, I'd get the full 180deg. diagonal
and the distortion for which I bought it.

I'm not into Fisheye, soooo ya got me podner.


Fisheye lenses can be used for so many things... (Caution, nude...)

Not bad .. not bad at all. But I'm still not into Fisheye. G

(BTW, good shot, Skip)



http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/onefishtwofish.html
(Shot on film with a Canon 1n.)