Personal computing discussed

Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat

 
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4444
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:11 pm

So, Canon appears to be releasing the long hoped for 7D next week.

Unfortunately.. and completely contrary to my prediction of slowly moving away from cropped sensors... it appears to be a 1.6x crop sensor.
What the heck? Seriously? Why?

There is no long-term future in cropped sensors.
What's even worse is it appears to be a 18MP camera.. even higher than the 50D which already had problems with noise in comparison to the 40D.

I really don't know why Canon thought this was a good idea. Perhaps it will sell well but I can almost guarantee if they would have made a cheaper FF camera it would have sold way better.

ugh.
/end rant.

Other than the fact it sucks because of the cropped sensor, it looks good in every other respect.
The 7D box/poster from SLRC

8fps
18MP (dual Digic 4)
19 AF points
Video
Virtual horizon
6400 ISO
100% VF

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/came ... on_7d.html
Last edited by danny e. on Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
 
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4444
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: Canon 7D

Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:18 pm

the one thing that I guess is kinda good news but also only a half-assed effort is the new 15-85 IS lens.
I'd be much more excited if it wasnt a slow lens.

Canon seems to do enough just to try to get by without doing what they really should.
If they're going to have a "semi-pro" crop camera, then they should introduce L level lenses to go with it.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
 
Skrying
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1792
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Canon 7D

Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:44 pm

I would guess this is a fully professional crop camera. I can think of a market that probably really like this... bird photographers. The extended range and improved AF will probably make this crowd very happy.

I don't have anything against a crop camera. I wish Canon would stop jacking up the megapixel count and focus on ISO performance though.
 
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4444
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: Canon 7D

Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:52 pm

Skrying wrote:
I would guess this is a fully professional crop camera. I can think of a market that probably really like this... bird photographers. The extended range and improved AF will probably make this crowd very happy.

I don't have anything against a crop camera. I wish Canon would stop jacking up the megapixel count and focus on ISO performance though.

higher MP is good if it's in a FF sensor.

they could have released an 18MP FF camera and it would have been freekin awesome.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
 
jobodaho
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1136
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: University of Nebraska Lincoln

Re: Canon 7D

Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:09 pm

danny e. wrote:
Skrying wrote:
I would guess this is a fully professional crop camera. I can think of a market that probably really like this... bird photographers. The extended range and improved AF will probably make this crowd very happy.

I don't have anything against a crop camera. I wish Canon would stop jacking up the megapixel count and focus on ISO performance though.

higher MP is good if it's in a FF sensor.

they could have released an 18MP FF camera and it would have been freekin awesome.


They already have a 21MP FF camera. There must me a market for it if they are making it, plus it will trump (most likely) Nikon's D300s. Plus who knows, they might have figured out their noise issues with this sensor. It's all speculation.

I do think the 15-85 is a needed addition to their EFs lineup as that was an area that I felt Nikon was leading in. So if you ask me, the announcement makes sense. They are going at Nikon's throat.
 
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden
Contact:

Re: Canon 7D

Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:45 pm

If the 100% listed is the viewfinder then its the first non 1D-series that has that. Not even the 5D has a 100% viewfinder. Although the crop makes very little sense, unless they are also releasing something like a 3D either now or the next release in half a year. But then, its still only rumours.
 
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4444
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: Canon 7D

Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:03 pm

Aphasia wrote:
If the 100% listed is the viewfinder then its the first non 1D-series that has that. Not even the 5D has a 100% viewfinder. Although the crop makes very little sense, unless they are also releasing something like a 3D either now or the next release in half a year. But then, its still only rumours.

I'm hoping the part that is wrong is the crop.
I'd rather have a 100% frame :)

Judging by the "7D box" pic you surely shouldn't believe any of it .. but I'd expect some details are fairly accurate at least.
The box looks like my Canon Pixma Pro 9000 printer box wrapped with a fake 7D printout

My objection to a "Pro" cropped sensor is it's basically buying into a tech with a very limited lifespan.
Noise was already a problem at 15MP at the 1.6x crop. Sure they can improve on their tech but there is only so much they can do with the limited size of the pixels.

I don't really see the 1.6x cropped sensors getting much higher of resolution than 18MP. I'm actually suprised at 18... we shall see when it actually gets reviewed I suppose how it performs.
-----------------
I'd be more swayed if the lenses they were releasing for the "pro-cropped" camera were pro level lenses.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
 
SPOOFE
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3167
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Canon 7D

Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:41 am

I'd rather have a 100% frame

Then get a 5D. Not the MkII, the original 5D. Sure, it's got a crappy LCD screen, but the pictures it takes are still incredibly sharp and polished.

I completely disagree about the lack of a future for cropped sensors. They still take great pictures. Even when FF cameras drop to $1000 a body, cropped sensor camers will be down to a couple hundred and will be sucking more and more people into the world of SLRs, selling more lenses in the process. Similarly, FF cameras will never be supplanted by medium or even large format digitals, for similar reasons.

And the 15-85 lens is just what Canon needed in their lineup. Other than the basic kit lens, they had few zooms that were at ~18mm wide; and now they even one-upped (or is that one-downed?) Nikon's popular 16-85.

I am surprised that they're putting a crop-sensor in the xD line as opposed to the xxD series, but whatever; it's just a name.
 
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4444
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:52 pm

YES!
a new 100mm Macro. :)

I've been waiting for that. I didn't expect it to be an L lens... might be out of my price range, but considering >50% of my photos are macro shots.. I might pick it up anyways.

http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/u ... 689686.jpg
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
 
Skrying
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1792
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:13 pm

Here you were talking about wanting the other new lens to be a "pro" lens and you talk about an L lens (aka PRO) being out of your price range? Weird...
 
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4444
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:28 pm

Skrying wrote:
Here you were talking about wanting the other new lens to be a "pro" lens and you talk about an L lens (aka PRO) being out of your price range? Weird...

because I already have a nice macro lens.. I want a good quality zoom. Something akin the 24-105L except was hoping for something like a 15-85 f2.8 @ $1,200 or so. One can dream.
Currently have the 17-85 EF-S lens and it's ok but not wide enough and distorted on both ends.

What I was really hoping for, though, was an introduction of a semi-decent, relatively cheap (1,800 max) FF body... so I could start moving in that direction.
and no.. I dont want the 5D. I also want video.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
 
Skrying
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1792
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:33 pm

danny e. wrote:
because I already have a nice macro lens.. I want a good quality zoom. Something akin the 24-105L except was hoping for something like a 15-85 f2.8 @ $1,200 or so. One can dream


I have serious doubts Canon (or anyone for that matter) could produce a lens in that range that would be worthy of an L or similar Pro level designation. Even if the lens was possible the price would likely be closer to $2000 than $1000. Just look at the 17-55 f/2.8. It comes in at $1000 and doesn't carry the L designation, it's also an EF-S lens.
 
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Re: Canon 7D

Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:44 pm

Skrying wrote:
I would guess this is a fully professional crop camera. I can think of a market that probably really like this... bird photographers. The extended range and improved AF will probably make this crowd very happy.

I don't have anything against a crop camera. I wish Canon would stop jacking up the megapixel count and focus on ISO performance though.

Yea, the extra zoom is pretty nice, with 300mm lens you have effective 480mm on those cropped cameras. And 18mm lenses at 29mm aren't that bad for most wide photos as well, so it's not that 1.6x is like totally bad.

Of course, sometimes you miss those fish eye effects, but on the other hand, extra zoom is quite nice sometimes.

Skrying wrote:
danny e. wrote:
because I already have a nice macro lens.. I want a good quality zoom. Something akin the 24-105L except was hoping for something like a 15-85 f2.8 @ $1,200 or so. One can dream


I have serious doubts Canon (or anyone for that matter) could produce a lens in that range that would be worthy of an L or similar Pro level designation. Even if the lens was possible the price would likely be closer to $2000 than $1000. Just look at the 17-55 f/2.8. It comes in at $1000 and doesn't carry the L designation, it's also an EF-S lens.


I don't know why you should bother with EF-S lens at all. I always look only at EF, so that they can be used on all Canon cameras :roll: EF-S is like a normal lens, except it isn't by definition.
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
 
Skrying
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1792
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:55 pm

I'm just using it as an example at how a 15-85 f/2.8 is basically an impossible lens without serious issues. It would likely have very high amounts of distortion and sharpness issues given that 15mm is very wide (extremely so on a zoom of that range). The cost would also be way up there. Most people who spend that amount would likely want a high quality Prime instead, which would certainly deliver the expected sharpness expected in that price range.
 
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden
Contact:

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:10 pm

Skrying wrote:
danny e. wrote:
because I already have a nice macro lens.. I want a good quality zoom. Something akin the 24-105L except was hoping for something like a 15-85 f2.8 @ $1,200 or so. One can dream


I have serious doubts Canon (or anyone for that matter) could produce a lens in that range that would be worthy of an L or similar Pro level designation. Even if the lens was possible the price would likely be closer to $2000 than $1000. Just look at the 17-55 f/2.8. It comes in at $1000 and doesn't carry the L designation, it's also an EF-S lens.
But the only reason the 17-55/2.8 IS isnt an L-lense is because its an EF-S lense, which disqualifies it from the L-cathegory. So any lense that are a wide angle and doesnt fit on a full frame wont have any pro-status officially, while being just as good perfomance wise. And to be honest, not all L-glass have superb performance while some normal lenses have incredible performance.
 
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden
Contact:

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:13 pm

What i would really like is for the next 1D iteration to have a 135 sensor. That would fit me perfectly. 1Ds is too darn expensive. 5D-series doesnt have the built in vertical grip and autofokus from the 1D-series and no 100% viewfinder. The 1D is perfect in all regards except that darn APS-H-size.
 
Skrying
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1792
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:54 pm

Aphasia wrote:
But the only reason the 17-55/2.8 IS isnt an L-lense is because its an EF-S lense, which disqualifies it from the L-cathegory. So any lense that are a wide angle and doesnt fit on a full frame wont have any pro-status officially, while being just as good perfomance wise. And to be honest, not all L-glass have superb performance while some normal lenses have incredible performance.


The best "normal" lens doesn't compare to the best L lens. The best "normal" lens doesn't compare to the lower L lenses. The 17-55 f/2.8 is EF-S but consider that there could be a specific reason for that... cost increase and performance degradation that could result when moving to EF coverage. Now, lens consider lenses like the EF 16-35 f/2.8 L and EF 24-70 f/2.8 L, both of these are around $1,500 give or not $100. These, combined, don't even cover danny.e's fantasy camera. The "combination" of these lenses would likely produce greatly inferior results and result in a lens upwards of $2,500. It would also be very heavy for a lens of that range. Most professionals would also rather have one of Canon's excellent Primes, which are going to be sharper, faster, and cheaper, instead. A 16-85 f/2.8, or an easier but not as wide 18-85 f/2.8 just simply seems very niche for its price demands (niche of a niche... what is that?). It just doesn't seem realistic to expect it and even less reasonable to be upset when Canon doesn't launch it.

The 18-85 f/3.5-5.6 on the other hand fits into a product area that Nikon has had strong options in. This lens is designed to sway Rebel users away from a Nikon option. Honestly if the 18-85 f/3.5-5.6 was around I would have stayed with my Canon camera instead of moving to Nikon. I wanted the Nikon 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 and Canon, at the time, didn't have anything to compete with it in my price range. For a serious casual photographer it seemed like I had only one choice if I wanted to keep my budget low and have a 9x-10x zoom option without losing the wide end. I'm seemingly fitting right in with the most popular crowd.
 
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Posts: 19673
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Canon 7D

Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:13 pm

Madman wrote:
I don't know why you should bother with EF-S lens at all.
Because the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is $1500 without image stabilization and with only 2/3 of the range of the 17-55. By making lenses specifically for the smaller sensor size, they can be smaller, lighter and less expensive, especially at the ultra-wide angle end. Most of the 7 EF-S lenses (before the new EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS are announced) are inexpensive compact models that deliver decent optical performance for a lower price than similar lenses for full-frame cameras. The same is true for the 13 Nikon DX lenses.
$760 EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
$1000 EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
$450 EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM
$160 EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
$595 EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
$400 EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
$255 EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
 
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4444
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:19 pm

Skrying wrote:
The best "normal" lens doesn't compare to the lower L lenses.

:roll:
You need to start reading more lens reviews from decent sites and stop thinking $$$ == quality.

Compare the EF-S 10-22 to the 16-35L lens

Also, a 15-85 would be 24-136. Not that far from the 28-135 that Canon produced.
I'm sure it'd be possible to make a very nice one... just a matter of price point.

My argument is that if they're releasing a 1,800 cropped body, they could surely release a nice L-ish quality lens around $1,500.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
 
Skrying
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1792
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:07 am

danny e. wrote:
:roll:
You need to start reading more lens reviews from decent sites and stop thinking $$$ == quality.

Judging by your comments I feel strongly I've read more reviews than you.

danny e. wrote:
Compare the EF-S 10-22 to the 16-35L lens


First, why? The EF-S 10-22mm is a complete non-starter. It won't work at all on this full frame camera you want so desperately. The first logical assumption about your make-believe dream lens is that it is an EF because you want a full frame camera, logically you wanted a lens that would work with full frame cameras then. Beyond that the EF-S is a slower lens. Significantly slower. The 16-35L at f/4 is just as sharp as the 10-22 at f/5.6 and this is true for almost the entire range. We could try to compare f/2.8 but the 10-22 can't do that at all. The 10-22 is also a plastic bodied lens, the 16-35L is a true L-class lens including environmental seals. It is a joke to compare these lenses. While the 10-22 is a solid value for a crop factor shooter it most certainly is NOT a 16-35L and it most certainly is NOT a full frame lens.

danny e. wrote:
Also, a 15-85 would be 24-136. Not that far from the 28-135 that Canon produced.
I'm sure it'd be possible to make a very nice one... just a matter of price point.

No, a 15-85 would be a 24-136 on a CROP FACTOR camera. The 28-135 would be a 45-216mm on a CROP FACTOR camera. That, as the numbers clearly show, is a very large difference. I'm sure they could produce one in that focal length range but 1.) It would be a massive compromise giving up image quality for zoom range. 2.) At f/2.8 be insanely expensive. At doubt Canon would do that at this time considering the image quality sacrifice and required price point would make it a niche within a niche. You would have avoided this entire mess if you would have at least said something potential realistic like 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. But you went all sorts of dreamy with the f/2.8 throughout the range, which increases cost highly.

danny e. wrote:
My argument is that if they're releasing a 1,800 cropped body, they could surely release a nice L-ish quality lens around $1,500.

Why? The 18-85 f/3.5-5.6 is a much more pressing issue with regard to what Canon needs on the market right now. I honestly doubt they were shooting for the wide angle market with this supposed 7D. To make it seems like a sports photography/birding camera. Put on great AF system on a APS-C sensor so you get more frame coverage and you really have the ideal camera for that group.

The lack of 18-xx zoom lenses in Canon's range that are comparable to Nikon's has been hurting them. Just a fact really.
 
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4444
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:51 am

Skrying wrote:
danny e. wrote:
:roll:
You need to start reading more lens reviews from decent sites and stop thinking $$$ == quality.

Judging by your comments I feel strongly I've read more reviews than you.

maybe it's just a comprehension problem then?

Skrying wrote:
First, why? The EF-S 10-22mm is a complete non-starter. It won't work at all on this full frame camera you want so desperately. The first logical assumption about your make-believe dream lens is that it is an EF because you want a full frame camera, logically you wanted a lens that would work with full frame cameras then. Beyond that the EF-S is a slower lens. Significantly slower. The 16-35L at f/4 is just as sharp as the 10-22 at f/5.6 and this is true for almost the entire range. We could try to compare f/2.8 but the 10-22 can't do that at all. The 10-22 is also a plastic bodied lens, the 16-35L is a true L-class lens including environmental seals. It is a joke to compare these lenses. While the 10-22 is a solid value for a crop factor shooter it most certainly is NOT a 16-35L and it most certainly is NOT a full frame lens.

What now? Who would ever want a 15-85mm lens for FF? That was my "dream lens" for a semi-pro cropped sensor.

Next.. you were the one who said none of the EF-S lens compared to any of the L lenses... I'm merely pointing out that some are comparable. They're never going to match on build quality or the performance in every area.. but they're comparable... although my "comparable" takes into account price so I suppose I'm not really making much of a case.
Yes, the 10-22 is slower. It's also half the price. The 16-35 has more distortion across the entire zoom. Almost 3 times the distortion at 16mm.

The 17-55 vs the 24-105 is an even better non-L to L comparison.


Skrying wrote:
danny e. wrote:
Also, a 15-85 would be 24-136. Not that far from the 28-135 that Canon produced.
I'm sure it'd be possible to make a very nice one... just a matter of price point.

No, a 15-85 would be a 24-136 on a CROP FACTOR camera. The 28-135 would be a 45-216mm on a CROP FACTOR camera.

Are you a little slow? I'm assuming you still were thinking I wanted a 15-85 EF lens? That doesn't even make any sense.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
 
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden
Contact:

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:33 am

Hmm, well this wasnt supposed to be such a long post but, it just went on. And yes, after writing half of the lists below i realize they may sound like boasting, but then, after half the list I'm probably a bit entitled to it :P

Skrying wrote:
The 17-55 f/2.8 is EF-S but consider that there could be a specific reason for that... cost increase and performance degradation that could result when moving to EF coverage. Now, lens consider lenses like the EF 16-35 f/2.8 L and EF 24-70 f/2.8 L, both of these are around $1,500 give or not $100. These, combined, don't even cover danny.e's fantasy camera. The "combination" of these lenses would likely produce greatly inferior results and result in a lens upwards of $2,500. It would also be very heavy for a lens of that range. Most professionals would also rather have one of Canon's excellent Primes, which are going to be sharper, faster, and cheaper, instead. A 16-85 f/2.8, or an easier but not as wide 18-85 f/2.8 just simply seems very niche for its price demands (niche of a niche... what is that?). It just doesn't seem realistic to expect it and even less reasonable to be upset when Canon doesn't launch it.
I think you seriously missinterpretated what i meant by having full 135 format coverage. You can never apply the difference in focal lenght literally since as you say, its not technically feasible. And who would ever need something as a 10-22 on 135-format. What you actually have to compare with is the 135-format equilent. Which for the 17-55 is the 24-70. And while there is some differences, like the 17-55 has IS, and the 24-70 has the reversed zoom/optimum hood arrangement, besides the weathersealing, etc, thats where the main differences is, not in the image performance. The 17-55 could easily have been engineerd for wather resistance and the extra build quality that goes into L-glasses, but they didnt, because its and EF-S, and hence is disqulified from L and the extras that entail.



Skrying wrote:
The best "normal" lens doesn't compare to the best L lens. The best "normal" lens doesn't compare to the lower L lenses.

And that is rather wide off the mark. Or you are just nitpicking on some of the extras that goes into making L-lenses. No, the best normal lenses doesnt compare to L-glass because of the build quality and weather sealing. As far as image performance goes, there are a ton of great lenses available from the normal stock. The L-glass on the other hand, have slightly difference crieteria, just as Canon has slightly different market in mind, and its not only based on image performance. And yes, I have actually tested alot of different lenses since i worked as a reviewer for a photography magazine before i went back into IT again.

* A few choices of L-glass that arent really that good...
100-400L - This is actually a rather weird bird when it comes to L-glass. Variable aperture, not that incredible when it comes to performance, etc.
28-300/3.5-5.6L - Yet again, good build quality, but absolute performance and variable aperture.
The various 1.2L lenses. They are good, but they have some odd things to them except being hugely expensive as not being worth their money in most cases. The only single reason for those is if you cant stand F/1.4 or F1.8.
All that said, the L-lenses are cream of the crop from the Canon line-up, and while not aspect of all lenses is good, the whole of it is usually is.

* Then we have a few lenses that could easily be L, if it werent for the lacking build quality due to not being build as L-lenses and the fact some of them are also EF-S.
EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM
EF 50/1.4 USM (put in a ring USM instead of the mikro, a bit better plastic, and voila)
EF 85/1.8 USM
EF 100/2.0 USM

Then you also have the DO-lenses. They are really L-glasses but have the fully separate DO classification instead, but they do include lense-hood, etc.

The 10-22 wouldnt be up that list because of the variable aperture really.
Another point that Canon really bungled with the non-L lenses is the lack of lense-hoods that must be had as an accessories, which is just stupid considering its most often a cheap piece of plastic with some flocking on it.

* My personal choice of lenses is what it is becuase i found they suited my needs so far.
Canon EF 50/1.4 USM
Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 135/2.0L USM
Canon EF 24-105/4L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM
Canon Extender EX 1.4x II
Sigma 30/1.4
Tamron 90/2.8 Macro

Although im probably switching the 70-200/2.8L IS for a 4L IS at some time. When i get a new camera with better high ISO. Probably also doing away with the 10-22 and get a 17-40/4L when i switch to 135-format.

* Other lenses that I've owned.
Canon EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 50/1.8 mk2
Canon EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6
Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di
Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM
Sigma Extender 2x

* Other lenses that I've tested or used.
Canon EF 16-35/2.8L USM
Canon EF 17-40/4L IS USM
Canon EF 24-70/2.8L USM
Canon EF 70-200/4L USM
Canon EF 100-400/3,5-5,6L IS USM
Canon EF 70-300/3.5-5.6 DO IS USM
Canon EF 85/1.2L USM
Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro
Canon EF 200/1.8L USM
Canon EF-S 60/2.8 USM Macro
Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM
Sigma 20/1.8
Sigma 105/2.8 Macro
Sigma 120-300/2.8
Nikon 24-70/2.8
Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR
Also, a bunch of minolta and Olympus 4:3 gear. But the list is getting far too long already.

For some time i used the 28-135, which is great in some parts, but not that good in others. Then i added the Tamron 24-75/2.8. Both of these was exchanged for the 24-105L, not because of image performance, which really isnt that different. Although Canon bungled it when they remade the 28-135 into the 17-85, which really isnt that good of a lense. The 28-135 was actually better, even on a crop camera, especially togehter with the 10-22.
 
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Posts: 19673
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:35 pm

That's quite a list, Aphasia. I've got just the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lenses. For image quality alone, the 100mm macro is tops, but the 17-55mm lens stays on my camera most of the time.
 
Skrying
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1792
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:33 pm

You don't feel there was a reason, beyond it being an EF-S lens and therefore not L-glass, that Canon did not engineer the 17-55 to have environment seals, etc? I feel it's price. The 17-55 is the walk around lens for cropped sensors, and certainly a 15-85 would be even more so. But I would argue Canon feels there is a price point where sales drop off significantly. I feel a 15-85 f/2.8, however desirable, would be in that price point for the Semi-Pro market. It seems these people either A.) Have a different type of photography in mind. or B.) Would rather save this cash and invest in EF lenses for a hopeful FF camera down the line.

To me a Pro level cropped sensor camera is marketed towards those who will spend lots of time in the longer focal lengths. Birding, sports photographers who want AF across as much as the sensor as possible.

A 15-85 f/2.8 just doesn't make much sense be it for the semi-pro cropped or some nutty FF user because of the realistic price point it would occupy.

As for the L-glass vs "normal" lens argument. If you feel it's "nit-picking" over seals and body construction... well then we simply disagree on how important those are. Lenses are the single most important investment in the camera system. I treat features that protect my investment nearly as high as the image quality itself. No doubt there are some very high quality options outside of the L-glass range for purely image quality reasons but those lenses, to me, are not comparable by definition.

I will say your experience with a variety of lenses is far beyond mine and impressive. I just don't seem to hold the same market segmentation view as you.
 
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden
Contact:

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:00 pm

To be honest, i think we really do agree on quite alot of things. But express it in different ways and from different points of view. And yeah, price point and market is probably one of the first things Canon looks at when designing a new lense if they arent going to do it for prestige only. Personally, i can think that may be a bit shortsighted at times, but since Canon is a business, money is almost always their main purpose when it comes down to it.

Skrying wrote:
You don't feel there was a reason, beyond it being an EF-S lens and therefore not L-glass, that Canon did not engineer the 17-55 to have environment seals, etc? I feel it's price. The 17-55 is the walk around lens for cropped sensors, and certainly a 15-85 would be even more so. But I would argue Canon feels there is a price point where sales drop off significantly. I feel a 15-85 f/2.8, however desirable, would be in that price point for the Semi-Pro market. It seems these people either A.) Have a different type of photography in mind. or B.) Would rather save this cash and invest in EF lenses for a hopeful FF camera down the line.
Its not because its an EF-S thats its not an L, but rather the other way around. :wink: It's an EF-S lense because they didnt believe in a market that would buy a cropped format L-lense with all the bells and whistles and a the pricepoint it will occupy. And I agree. The 17-55 is the walkabout lense for cropped bodies, just like the 24-70/2.8 is one of the most use press-lenses on 135-format bodies. If the 17-55 would have had sealing, etc, it would be the price of the 24-70. Because it would be the same lense really, just with the different formats in mind. Just like the 17-85 vs. the 28-135. Canon has long thought that most pro's should and would use the 1D as primary, and nowdays the 5D as secondary bodies. But with the last years of especially advanced hobby photographers, and also many pros going with a xxD for secondary body, the market has shifted abit. A 17-55 with L-lenses bells and whistles, enviromental seals, etc. That togehter with a better sealed xxD body would probably cut into the sales of both the 24-70 and the 1D and 5D in many ways. And yeah, your description of a 15-85 is probably very close. Although I'm not sure that a 15-85/2.8 would be technically feasable, ever. And if, it would probably be coming into the range of the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 craziness.

I feel that the only reason even the 17-55/2.8 even exists is because its a EF-S lense. A 17-55 lense for use with 135-bodies would be unfeasable. At least from a price-performance standpoint. It may be technically possible, but would probably be something like a frankenlense. Compare a 17-40/4, 16-35/2.8, then 17-55/2.8(cropped). Then take a look at olympus, which has an even smaller sensor. They can in effect, create about the same lensen, but gather the same amount of light on a smaller surface, getting a 35-100/2.0, a 28-70/2, etc.


Skrying wrote:
To me a Pro level cropped sensor camera is marketed towards those who will spend lots of time in the longer focal lengths. Birding, sports photographers who want AF across as much as the sensor as possible.
Either that or as a secondary body. As you say, the cropfactor does give you some good thing when it comes to both size and weight of the equipment, and the cropfactor for tele-use. But that depends on the pixelsize of the 135-format camera its compared to, since physical cropping or digital cropping really doesnt make that much of a different if all other things are equal. Some impacts from AA-filters and such may still turn the advantage one way or another.


Skrying wrote:
A 15-85 f/2.8 just doesn't make much sense be it for the semi-pro cropped or some nutty FF user because of the realistic price point it would occupy.
True.


Skrying wrote:
As for the L-glass vs "normal" lens argument. If you feel it's "nit-picking" over seals and body construction... well then we simply disagree on how important those are. Lenses are the single most important investment in the camera system. I treat features that protect my investment nearly as high as the image quality itself. No doubt there are some very high quality options outside of the L-glass range for purely image quality reasons but those lenses, to me, are not comparable by definition.
That angle certainly holds validity, and is probably the single reason you can still find lenses like the 28-300L and 100-400L in the L-cathegory. Even the 24-105L would probably fall into that cathegory. Nitpicking or not. You are right to say that sealing etc isnt unimportant. But the need for it varies depending on personal use. For nature photographers and press-folk, yes, without they would have some trouble. For anybody inside a studio, the image performance comes much higher then any weather sealing would. So my point is really that its "L-quality" or not, is in parts in the eyes of the beholder. Really its all up to canon, but since its held to a standard when discussion other lenses, one should perhaps separate the whole from the various parts.


Skrying wrote:
I will say your experience with a variety of lenses is far beyond mine and impressive. I just don't seem to hold the same market segmentation view as you.
Well, working for a photography magazine will do that to you. The sad thing was that we actually had a morality standard, so the finer "perks", i.e bribe-trips like a weeks safari in africa, etc. was always turned down. Too bad there is still too much of, i scratch your back and you scratch my back from the manufacturers and distributers side. As for market segmentation, for cameras I think its mostly artifical since most cameras available today will be enough for press-use if you take away weather sealing, etc. Studio and landscape photography has other things they concentrate on, etc. With lenses, yeah, image quality alone isnt what decides the segmentation. Sealing, support, etc is also important of course.
 
Skrying
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1792
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:42 pm

I should say.... I virtually never think of studio use. So the seals, etc are far more important to me than they would ever be for studio use. I'm just a silly hobbyist anyway. This can be seen because I am actually pleased about the 18-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I moved to Nikon simply to nab the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 VR (easy to do when your total investment so far was under $600... which I made entirely back via crazy eBayers). I'm more angry that the rumored 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is not equipped with a USM.
 
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4444
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:46 am

Skrying wrote:
I feel a 15-85 f/2.8, however desirable, would be in that price point for the Semi-Pro market. It seems these people either A.) Have a different type of photography in mind. or B.) Would rather save this cash and invest in EF lenses for a hopeful FF camera down the line.

To me a Pro level cropped sensor camera is marketed towards those who will spend lots of time in the longer focal lengths. Birding, sports photographers who want AF across as much as the sensor as possible.

A 15-85 f/2.8 just doesn't make much sense be it for the semi-pro cropped or some nutty FF user because of the realistic price point it would occupy.

That I agree with. I'm guessing it would be >2K.

Perhaps they could make my dream lens for the FF camera though.. 24-136 f2.8 and have it come in around $2,200.
Edit: and then a 70-300 f2.8-4 for around $2,600. :)
Last edited by danny e. on Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
 
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 4444
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:47 am

It appears tomorrow is the big day.
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
 
mattsteg
Gerbil God
Posts: 15782
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Applauding the new/old variable width forums
Contact:

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:02 pm

a 5.7x f/2.8 zoom is a pretty large ask. You're talking about pretty much doubling the zoom ratios of currently-available f/2.8 zooms.
...
 
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden
Contact:

Re: Canon 7D + other new camera gear

Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:31 pm

mattsteg wrote:
a 5.7x f/2.8 zoom is a pretty large ask. You're talking about pretty much doubling the zoom ratios of currently-available f/2.8 zooms.

Could be done with the 4/3 sensor i think. As for full 135-format, nope. Not without some serious frankenlensing.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
GZIP: On