Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 23, 2006, 9:06 AM   #21
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
The more I stare at the announcements the more it seems like it will be a nice addition to the kit, after a while.
I never buy new releases until others have had a go at testing them out :G

Peter
Which 'it' ? The 30d, 17-55 or 85?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2006, 9:59 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

:-) the 30D :-)

I'm quite happy with my lens collection.
A mix of Canon, Tamron, Sigma that get me from 16-300mm @ F2.8 from 28mm up, and a couple of faster short primes.

Only lenses I may consider adding now are in the ef TS series.

John, your profile lists spelunking! Have you seen Christohers pages?
http://www.darklightimagery.net/caveimages.html
He hasen't updated in a while though., maybe the winter slows things down.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2006, 7:13 AM   #23
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JohnG

I see this as Canon's Archille heel
Quote:
As for IS in the body, I don't see Canon or Nikon going that route until Sony picks up a more significant chunk of the market. All Canon's top telephoto line would then be compromised: and there would be a demand for all the same lenses without IS. And let's not forget, this is still a huge benefit over 3rd party lenses. So, while it would be great for us, it would be a severe blow to Canon's lens sales if they had to put IS in the body. And unless Sony starts eating up a bigger slice of the DSLR market I don't know why Canon would WANT to put IS in the body and have to re-design their top glass and lose sales on other IS lenses to third-parties.
Minolta was extremely smart - In one swoop they make their entire AF lenses line IS without spending a dime... If Sony has learned (and I hope they do) from their Betamax day, they should emulate Apple's iPod example: more 3rd parties -> better marketing clout - You just can't give away enough other MP3 players

Think about it (god forbid) an excellent f/2.8 Sigma or Tamron with IS overnight guess where the consumers are heading - and Sony (or Samsung) does not make any lens...
-> You can mount a Leica on a Nikon now (unheard of just a short while ago) now if the body comes with IS that will be revolutionary too! :lol: :-) :G
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2006, 1:23 PM   #24
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
JohnG

I see this as Canon's Archille heel
I don't disagree at all. Again, I'd love it. And it is definitely an 'in' for Sony. But I have to disagree about the ipod comparison. In the DSLR market, which do you think makes more money for Canon - lenses or bodies? And, as you pointed out there are excellent optics on third party lenses now, so if you were working at Canon, why would you want to give up the IS competitive advantage? How then could you sell a 70-200 2.8 IS for $600 more than a Simga? The 100-400 IS would also take a huge hit. That's why I'd love to see Sony do well - force Canon's hand. I think we'll have a better idea in 2 years after we see how Sony does in the DSLR market.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2006, 6:42 AM   #25
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
But I have to disagree about the ipod comparison.
I'm viewing this term of a product appeal to the consumer (i.e. us) - not as a benefit to the bottom line of the manufacturer

-> It's why I see this as their Archille's heel as they are beatable (again WIntel vs Apple is another good example): Imagine a non-pro like the hobbyist in me with an 'improved' KM-7D and a Bigma, or the killer product a 30/55mm f/1.4 with anti-shake. I'll drop Canon in a hearbeat!


This is not because I like IS either (which is overated IMO), but again it's the feature appeal (and how they market it) to the general consumers - Great everyone can shoot in low-light... But what's wrong with this picture?

Isn't photography all about lighting??? Seldom are flashes not allowed - with proper lighting technique a picture will always come out better because of the 'photograher' control over his shot composition including the foreground/background...

You leave it to IS and everyone is 'stuck' with what's available - Where is creativity in all this? We all end up with about the same 'average' shots (and all because of the camera automation) @ 9 RAW frames! :lol: :-) :G
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2006, 8:11 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

I think KM saw the writing on the wall and had to team up with Sony to compete against Nikon and Canon.

It wouldn't be the first time the best technical solution (antishake in body)gets left behind.

Recall the Sony Betamax versus VHS? The Betamax was the better format but lost the battle to VHS.

Much to my chagrin, Kodak makes more digital camera's than any other manufacturer.

Which just goes to show you, it's not the best camera manufacturers who win out, it's the manufacturer who can unload crap to Best Buy and Target wins in the end.

Anyways, just a beef I guess.

-- Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2006, 10:49 AM   #27
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
Isn't photography all about lighting??? Seldom are flashes not allowed - with proper lighting technique a picture will always come out better because of the 'photograher' control over his shot composition including the foreground/background... :-) :G
.... and if you want that foreground and background to both be in focus, you'll may need to use smaller apertures, where you'd beneifit from anti-shake.

As for flash, in one of the local clubs here with live music in the bar area (with almost all of the light coming from a few small candles scattered around at tables), one of the patrons complained about my using a flash, and I was asked not to do it again.

So, in order to get any photos at all (without bringing a tripod with me, which may have been objected to by patrons, too), I had to shoot at ISO 3200 with shutter speeds as slow as 1/5 second at f/2.5 with a 28mm f/2. I could not have pulled that off without AS (and that's really stretching the limits for sharp photos, even with AS, with some motion blur from subject movement).

Next time, I think I'll ask if it's OK to put a candle on the piano so that I can get a little better exposure of the piano player. LOL

It's not just about low light either. If you want to stop down the aperture for greater depth of field while keeping ISO speeds set lower for best quality, anti-shake is also very nice to have. Think early morning photos, macros, etc (or any conditions where you may want to use smaller apertures, even though light may be good enough for wider aperture settings when you don't need great DOF).

Or how about night sports or concerts where you may be outside of a camera's flash range? Sure, you can use a monopod or tripod, but that's an added piece of equipment that you may not want to drag along.

I like the ambience of existing light photos better, too.

Even taking walks at night, I take advantage of anti-shake, taking photos of surrounding scenary on the streets under nothing but dim street lighting at times.

I was just participating in another thread where someone wanted to take photos of shorelines at night, and was getting blurry photos with his film cameras.

So, I remembered taking a quick snapshot, about 20 minutes *after* sunset with my KM 5D.

Was AS absolutely necessary for it? Maybe not at 1/25 second shutter speed, since the 35mm equivalent angle of view was only about 42mm. But, I didn't have a tripod with me at the time and I'm sure AS helped out some. Also, I suspect that people get sharper photos using AS, even if they're not below the traditional 1/focal length "rule of thumb" (and I was in this one). It's a really neat feature to have.

Again, just a quick snapshot I took while waiting to board a riverboat for a dinner cruise.

ISO 1600 using a Minolta 28mm f/2 at f/3.5 and 1/25 second with a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D. It was shot at 5:40PM on December 12, 2005 (20 minutes after sunset, which was at 5:20PM here). I stopped it down to f/3.5 for a tad better sharpness. Although, I could have probably gone another stop or so with AS.

Shot in RAW and converted with Adobe Camera Raw 3.3 Beta using the "as shot" white balance (auto wb set in camera), then downsized with Irfanview to 800 pixels wide using Lanczos and saved as JPEG for posting here. No other Post Post Processing was applied (and ACR does a really nice job pulling out sky color, when many other raw converters leave it dark without lots of tweaking).


Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 8:24 AM   #28
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JimC

This is what I meant by foreground/background...

Here's you see it:


... and here you don't:


Both images 'could' have benefited from IS (~1/200s @ 400mm), but is not needed here at all because of the flash usage: in the 1st case without the filled this bird would have lost all the details/color because of the strong backlit, and in the second case the background would have cluttered up the image (thank to the flash fall-off with distances)!






Quote:
you'll may need to use smaller apertures, where you'd beneifit from anti-shake
-> You don't gain much in landscape with the aperture - Here's a picture of a 17mm zoom @ f/2.8, and we all know how fast colors can change during sunrise or sunset. In the few fleeting minutes that you'll need for the extra stops required by a lens with IS you would have captured a totally different picture... BTW if one uses IS here then the clouds and waves formations would surely look different as well:









... and of course no one needs a tripod in full sunlight, but if you use this tool as it is meant to be - the resulting image can turn out quite different from the ordinary:







->>> IMO people don't really "need" IS - They want IS (just in case) - Be creative people!!! :idea:
May be we should all be underwriting insurance instead :lol: :-) :G

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2006, 3:36 PM   #29
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4
Default

Getting back on topic, I pleased with the 30d for the pathetic reason that I won't be affected by upgrade envy for the next couple of years. I guess the message is the natural next step is full frame. No more efs lenses for me, ok maybe just that wide angle one.
Blue Asbestos is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:01 AM.