This content has been marked as final. Show 27 replies
No. . .but PMA has already started (and if it ain't happened yet, it ain't gonna for a while).
Actually, PMA runs from March 8 thru 11, so it hasn't started yet.
Nevertheless, my guess is that, unless Canon is planning a big surprise for March 8, there will be no announcement to replace the 30D until the Fall, just before Photokina '07. After all, Canon just released a special EOS 20th Anniversary flyer promoting new consumer and "prosumer" DSLR body-and-lens kits which include the 30D in the line up. Odds are they wouldn't do that the very same month they'd announce a replacement for the 30D.
The 5D, on the other hand, may be a different story. After all, it's now past Canon's normal 18-month cycle for DSLRs so it's due for an upgrade. My bet is that the 5D Mark II (or whatever they name it) will incorporate improvements similar to those that went into the new 1D Mark III --e.g., more AF sensors, 14-bit A/D converter, lower noise, higher dynamic range, ISO up to 6400, Digic III, higher shooting speed (at least 5-fps, hopefully), and a full-frame 12MP+ version of the 1D Mark III's newer CMOS. A mirror lockup button would be nice, too. :-)
thanks for the words.
Yea, I'm on the border line of trying to pick a camera from Canon and not go with a Nikon because of the lens I have invested. That and I tend to like the color captures of the Canon more once in ACR.
It's really kind of a bummer that the 5D does not have a built in flash, but it has the stupid print button on it....go figure for a entry level professional camera. Both features are seen as consumer items, but it would be nice to pick the D5 up and shoot grab shots without having to hook up a bulky flash unit to it. The other thing that bugs me is that the D5 can only do a burst of 3fps, but the 30D can do around 5.
I really need a full frame censor for super wide shots for Automotive car shows that I shoot - so the 30D is kind of off the list, but I need the speed of it.
So there in lies the rub - I need a camera that does not exist...
Seems I always have some kind of issue with something...
"...Yea, I'm on the border line of trying to pick a camera from Canon and not go with a Nikon because of the lens I have invested. That and I tend to like the color captures of the Canon more once in ACR."
Two excellent reasons to stick with Canon IMO, but at the same time Nikon makes two very excellent new "prosumer" models --D80 and D200. If I weren't already a Canon man with a dozen EOS lenses I'd seriously consider the D200 over my 30D.
"...I really need a full frame censor for super wide shots for Automotive car shows that I shoot - so the 30D is kind of off the list.."
I have no problem using my 30D for super wide shots with Tokina's superb 12-24mm/f:4 AT-X Pro (about equal to 18mm to 36mm in full-frame terms). Very sharp and well-built lens. I understand Canon's EF-S 10mm-22mm lens is quite good, too.
IMO, unless you need to shoot a lot wider than 10mm (16mm) there's no reason to wait for a full-frame DSLR unless you want the 5D's 12MP resolution and its slighly wider dynamic range.
Moreover, with a 1.5x or 1.6x crop, you're using the "sweet spot" of your lenses, while on full-frame any of your lenses' flaws (such as softness and chromatic abberations along the edges) will show up.
>So there in lies the rub - I need a camera that does not exist...
Why are you not looking at the 1D2 or wait a little longer for the mark3. It is a little more expensive then a 5D, has just 1.3 crop and is unbelievable fast.
Save a little more and your in for a 1Ds2, not as fast as the 1D but full sensor and extreme quality images, even at 1600 iso
Yea - Not sure if I really want the heaviness of the 1D or all the features that it has to offer for my needs. It's always nice to have the newest toys - but new toys come out too often to justify the expense.
A buddy of mine has a D200 Nikon and just loves it. Super fast and easy to use - just not sure if I want to keep playing the camera game when in reality I don't make a living from it - well, indirectly make a living per say...
The reason why I want to go with a full frame censor is because of the color fidelity and depth of field you get with it.
I've heard from other photogs that the Tokina lenses are not up to snuff compared to Canon ones. What U have to say about that?
"I've heard from other photogs that the Tokina lenses are not up to snuff compared to Canon ones. What U have to say about that?"
Obviously, it depends on *which* Tokina lens (compared to the Canon equivalent) they're referring to.
I can only speak for the ones I own and use, namely the 300mm f:2.8 and the 12-24mm f:4, which has been very favorably compared to both Canon's EF-S 10-22mm (a non-L consumer grade lens) and Nikon's DX 12-24mm in side-by-side comparisons. Some reviewers ranked the Tokina higher than or equal to the Canon in both image quality and build.
IMO, the two Tokinas I have give me images every bit as sharp, detailed, contrasty, and color-accurate as my best Canon lenses, including my 70-200/f:4L and 200/f:2.8L.
My only gripe with the 300mm is that it's not USM (but still very quiet) and it doesn't focus as quickly as my L lenses do. But it's sharp as a tack and built like a tank, and for 1/3 the price of the Canon equivalent I'm not complaining! I have zero gripes with the 12-24mm (which, btw, I can also use on my "fullframe" EOS-1V at 18mm and above).
I just picked up a 100- 400 F4.5 zoom Canon and have just started to shoot with it. It's a nice lens and versital - bit slow on the focus, but the puss/pull zoom is as fast as you want it....;o)
I just need a body to optomise the lenses. Thanks for the input so far.
You're welcome, Mike. Btw, I bought my Tokina 300mm f:2.8 from a pro who shot a few Sports Illustrated and fashion magazine covers with it. He was very happy with it. The only reason he sold it was to buy Canon's Image Stabilizer version. Otherwise, he said, he would've kept it.
So if you had to purchase a camera NOW - what would you buy and why?
Depends. Do you mean as a first-time DSLR buyer, or as someone shopping for an extra DSLR?
I have two SLR's
I'm looking to expand my mind.
> So if you had to purchase a camera NOW - what would you buy and why?
Canon 5D. Without question.
Because I have one, I've had a year to use it and compare it to other cameras, and I'd buy it again.
The files are wonderfully smooth. I use it primarily for annual reports (11x17), but have made prints as large as 40x72 from a single frame (Epson prints at 200ppi.) Amazing detail even at that size.
This camera redefines the concept of low-light photography. Shooting at ISO1600 or even ISO3200 yields amazing files with suprisingly low relative noise. I've shot images for clients at ISO3200 that have been printed as horizontal double trucks (8.5x22) that are incredible.
The fps spec is not important to me with my style of shooting, so I can't comment on that.
I'm an old 35mm hand from waaaay back in the Stone Age (early 1970's), so I'm accustomed to working with the 35mm format; the way lenses for that format are supposed to be used (i.e., full-frame); and large, bright viewfinders.
Therefore, if I was to start over from scratch *and* could afford it, I would buy the 5D without hesitation.
But four years ago, for *most* newcomers to digital migrating from 35mm film, there was no full-frame option available. The only DSLRs then were one by Kodak (I forgot the model name) and one by Canon (1Ds), both of which were affordable only by established pros and wealthy amateurs.
However, I did a test run with a 10D --which I *could* afford, just barely LOL-- and was sold! (I kept it 'til last May when I traded up to a 30D.) That period taught me a lot about digital. I also got used to the crop factor and learned to work around it. But I still loved using my EOS-3 more and kept wishing for an affordable digital equivalent. So when the 5D came out in late 2005, I drooled but the $3300 price tag kept me at bay.
Bottom line: If you can afford it, can't wait to get into digital, and don't want to take the time to learn working with a 1.6x crop body, then by all means go for the 5D.
Otherwise, I'd recommend getting the 30D and keep it as your back-up body when you can afford the 5D or its successor. That's what I did. :-)
Of course, I meant "The only *full-frame* DSLRs then..."
Im leaning towards the 5D - but I need 5 fps and a built in flash would be nice. If I can have that - I'd by two with no problem.
maybe I will wait till the next version of the 5D if and when it comes out. I can get buy with what I have for now - I guess.
I'm shooting Neal Schon from Journey, George Linch and Carlos Santana's nephew this weekend at a benefit concert so I will let you know how it goes.
>Im leaning towards the 5D - but I need 5 fps and a built in flash would be nice. If I can have that - I'd by two with no problem.
A few things, Why would you need a built in flash for?? The 5D as well as the 1Ds2 and (up to 1250 iso the 1D2 also) are superb. Regarding you are using RAW you can get a lot with available light. I only use my flash if real necessary.
Full frame is as John stated before showing all the faults in the edges from most lenses.
I do have an excellent 85mm 1.2 (mk2) but even this one is showing Chromatic Aberration in certain situations.
I stupidly enough traded my 17-35 for the 16-35 2.8 and this one is real dramatic in the corners and will only be reasonable starting at F11.
So if you are willing to spend money for 2 5D body why not buy the 1D2, or at least go to the store and try it once :-)
cuz I need two different lenses at the same time for some shoots and it takes too long to swap out lenses for event shooting.
OK - got stupid with the credit card and got a 5D along with a fish eye, Macro, 70 - 200 IS USM 2.8 and whatever...
Now what do I do?
Send them to me while you try to figure it out? Actually, I have all that except for the fisheye.
Yea - the Fish eye is a really interesting affect. I think I can get some really cool flower shots with that.
Fish-eye... Didn't Timothy Leary have something to do with inventing that lens?...
I just stumbled on this thread while rebounding from a momentary slump.
I'm excited to hear about your new 5D Mike. The lenses sound nice too. Let me know how you like the 70-200 2.8. This is the lens I've been wanting for a while now but held off because I was warned about it being heavy.
A couple of weeks ago I was the second shooter for a wedding. I ended up carrying the 5D with the 24-105 around my neck and the 20D with the 100-400 on my right shoulder. I shot with both of these for about 4 hours. I think if I can do that I can probably handle the 70-200 2.8 without much trouble.
Keep us posted on how you like your lenses, etc. I'll subscribe to this thread so I can follow it.
yea Linda - The 70 - 200 is a heavy lens. It's not something that I would recommend carrying around for grab shots at a party. Id go for the 28-105 L 4 - series 77mm if you are wanting a really nice lens that will not blow out your wrists.
But if you want a REALLY sweet lens - this one is a dream. So sharp and the color on a 5D with it - is insane to say the least...
Mike, You must mean the 24-105L f/4 lens. That's the one I have.
I just compared the weight of the 70-200L f/2.8 lens with my 100-400L f/4 lens.
With the collar I think the 70-200 weighs .5 pounds more than the 100-400. Without the collar it weight .2 lbs more.
Glad to know you like it. I talked to a young wedding photographer at our guild who has it this week. She is petite and yet seems to manage with it okay shooting weddings. She too loves the results.
28 - 24 - same thing to me....;o) yes, that lens. How is that lens? I was about to get one.
I got both the 100-400 and the 70-200.
I have to have the ring off the 70-200 because it's a turn zoom and not a push-pull like the 100-400. It tends to get in the way....
> How is that lens? I was about to get one.
Not sure how I feel about this lens. Sometimes it seems pretty good, other times I'm disappointed. I get best results by shooting totally Manual but that's not always practical. I have the older 550EX flash, which I hear does not perform as well as the newer 580EX.
My problem is that I have too many irons in the fire to spend enough time figuring out what is right and what is wrong with it. I'm sure sometimes it is photographer error also. Then again, I may not have a good copy.
I compare it to the lens I use on my 20D, which is the 17-85 EFS. This lens seems to be sharper than the 24-105.
Then again, it could be the camera itself combined with the lens. I know that the 100-400 is sharper on my 20D than the 5D. I've not tried the 24-105 on the 20D, but probably should just to see how it does.
If I get some time over the next couple of weeks, I'll try to experiment with the 24-105 on the two bodies under different conditions and report back.