30D, 3D, and 1Ds RS

blackwaterstudioblackwaterstudio Registered Users Posts: 779 Major grins
edited February 21, 2006 in Cameras
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/354076/0

Discuss
«1

Comments

  • MalteMalte Registered Users Posts: 1,181 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2006
    http://www.dphotojournal.com/canon-eos-3d/

    canon_eos3da.jpg

    Malte
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2006
    ::>DROOL<:: 40 f/1.2L
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,708 moderator
    edited February 17, 2006
    Eye Control like the EOS 3 film camera?? Interesting.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • MalteMalte Registered Users Posts: 1,181 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2006
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=16792169

    Malte
  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2006
    god i want that lense/camera.eek7.gif


    look out, Mr. Secret plan has got his cogs a turnin'
    Daniel Bauer
    smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com

  • lynnesitelynnesite Registered Users Posts: 747 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2006
    C'mon, Andy, you know everything. I need the sports shooter's replacement for the 20D (and don't tell me IIn...), I like the "throwaway" cameras.

    Though this week's job would pay for a IIn. :D Taxes, eh.:uhoh
    Lynne
    Galleries here Upcoming Ranch/Horse Workshop
  • Bob BellBob Bell Registered Users Posts: 598 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2006
    Interesting. Canon needs to update the 50/1.4. I didn't think they would change the focal length to 40.

    Wonder if they are trying to change the old lens pattern of 25-50-100 to 20-40-85.
    Bob
    Phoenix, AZ
    Canon Bodies
    Canon and Zeiss Lenses
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,708 moderator
    edited February 19, 2006
    Canon makes a good 20mm??
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2006
    Bob Bell wrote:
    Wonder if they are trying to change the old lens pattern of 25-50-100 to 20-40-85.

    Psst... they already have an 85:D
    Daniel Bauer
    smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com

  • Red BullRed Bull Registered Users Posts: 719 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2006
    Well 40 1.2L would really be a 52 1.2L on a 1.3 crop. So it may very well be possible.
    -Steven

    http://redbull.smugmug.com

    "Money can't buy happiness...But it can buy expensive posessions that make other people envious, and that feels just as good.":D

    Canon 20D, Canon 50 1.8 II, Canon 70-200 f/4L, Canon 17-40 f/4 L, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 430ex.
  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    Red Bull wrote:
    Well 40 1.2L would really be a 52 1.2L on a 1.3 crop. So it may very well be possible.

    :nah Canon's doing away with the 1.3 crop.
    Daniel Bauer
    smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com

  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,250 moderator
    edited February 20, 2006
    DanielB wrote:
    :nah Canon's doing away with the 1.3 crop.

    Canon does what they want to do. Don't count out 1.3. Or 1.5. Or 0.9, or whatever. Even if they don't have a 1.3 something this week doesn't mean they won't have it some other time in the future.

    Remember, we all thought 1.6 was lame not long ago. Now it is their best selling sensor size. 1.3 might just be the new 1.6, now that costs have come way down.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    true David... hopefully they come out with a Consumer FF,

    i would buy it in a heart-beatiloveyou.gif
    Daniel Bauer
    smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com

  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    David_S85 wrote:
    Canon does what they want to do. Don't count out 1.3. Or 1.5. Or 0.9, or whatever. Even if they don't have a 1.3 something this week doesn't mean they won't have it some other time in the future.

    Remember, we all thought 1.6 was lame not long ago. Now it is their best selling sensor size. 1.3 might just be the new 1.6, now that costs have come way down.

    1.6 is 240mm free L glass on top of my 400 f/5.6 for surfers and i wont give it up without a fight.
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    DanielB wrote:
    :nah Canon's doing away with the 1.3 crop.
    What makes you say that? Not saying you are wrong, just wondering where the info came from.

    So does this mean Canon's Pro Line will be full-frame (i.e. the current 1.3 crop 1D Mark II becomes FF) and their consumer and pro-sumer line is 1.6 crop?
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    mercphoto wrote:
    What makes you say that? Not saying you are wrong, just wondering where the info came from.

    So does this mean Canon's Pro Line will be full-frame (i.e. the current 1.3 crop 1D Mark II becomes FF) and their consumer and pro-sumer line is 1.6 crop?


    that rumor has been going around for awhile... apparently last year a Canon sales rep. slipped a statement that had something to do with canon discontinuing the 1.3x line... so we'll see, that was last year and they haven't done it yetmwink.gif
    Daniel Bauer
    smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com

  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    DanielB wrote:
    that rumor has been going around for awhile... apparently last year a Canon sales rep. slipped a statement that had something to do with canon discontinuing the 1.3x line... so we'll see, that was last year and they haven't done it yetmwink.gif
    FWIW, I had a Canon rep tell me that the pro's don't like the crop factors, especially the sports shooters. That surprised me, because the crop factor makes the long lenses even longer. His comment was the pros will buy the long glass, what they need is the background seperation of a narrow depth of field. Full frame is one way to get narrow depth of field.

    Makes me wonder why the pro sports shooters use Nikon, which I beleive is (at best) a 1.5 crop factor. And I think the high-speed-crop camera they have is a 2.0 crop factor.

    Oh well, personally I like the 1.6 crop factor and the help it gives my lenses.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    like i said, give me a FF camera over a 1.6 or 1.3 any day... i enjoy shooting landscapes and i just can't ever get wide-enough on my 10D, i sure hope canon comes out with a consumer FF this year at some point...rolleyes1.gif
    Daniel Bauer
    smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com

  • Bob BellBob Bell Registered Users Posts: 598 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    Pathfinder on a 20D or 1DmkII the 20/2.8 is fine. Its just scary on FF.

    Daniel who has an 85? Canon has 2 jokes of an 85 :) can you tell I am a 85mm hater? Owned the 85/1.2, 1/8 (well its on the selling block when I get unlazy), CZ 85mm, can't find one that I like :)
    Bob
    Phoenix, AZ
    Canon Bodies
    Canon and Zeiss Lenses
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    Bob Bell wrote:
    Pathfinder on a 20D or 1DmkII the 20/2.8 is fine. Its just scary on FF.
    I've heard a lot of people complain about Canon wide angles at the edges but I have no direct experience. I guess a crop factor has two desirable features: 1) you use the center, sweet spot of the lens, and 2) my 300/2.8 lens is nearly 500mm in effective length! :sweet!

    Daniel, buy a 10-22 lens. Much cheaper than a full-frame camera and an equivalent 16-35 lens. :)
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • Bob BellBob Bell Registered Users Posts: 598 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    mercphoto wrote:
    I've heard a lot of people complain about Canon wide angles at the edges but I have no direct experience. I guess a crop factor has two desirable features: 1) you use the center, sweet spot of the lens, and 2) my 300/2.8 lens is nearly 500mm in effective length! :sweet!

    Daniel, buy a 10-22 lens. Much cheaper than a full-frame camera and an equivalent 16-35 lens. :)

    Your right about the crop factor only using the best part of the lens. Your 300 is still 300 just doesnt have the field of view. I wish it was true cause yesterday I was shooting with a 400+1.4x and could of used 900mm :)
    Bob
    Phoenix, AZ
    Canon Bodies
    Canon and Zeiss Lenses
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    Bob Bell wrote:
    Your right about the crop factor only using the best part of the lens. Your 300 is still 300 just doesnt have the field of view.
    Which is why I said effective length. :) Field of view is mostly what I am concerned with in terms of a telephoto, and the field of view of a 300mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor camera is approximately the field of view of a 480mm lens on a full-frame camera. Depths of field will differ, and a few other things, but its not a bad way to view things.

    Short answer is, with a full frame camera, I either would need longer lenses, or to stand closer, to get the same images I get today.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    mercphoto wrote:
    Daniel, buy a 10-22 lens. Much cheaper than a full-frame camera and an equivalent 16-35 lens. :)

    10D only EF mount:cry might pick up a Tokina 12-24 here in a couple months though.
    Daniel Bauer
    smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com

  • Bob BellBob Bell Registered Users Posts: 598 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    mercphoto wrote:
    Short answer is, with a full frame camera, I either would need longer lenses, or to stand closer, to get the same images I get today.

    Bill, why would the target change in size? It should be exactly the same on a 20D and 1Ds. The magnification of the lens doesnt change nor the focal length. The only real difference is how much more canvas there is.

    In essence an APS-C sensor is like putting a mat box at the end of the lens.
    Bob
    Phoenix, AZ
    Canon Bodies
    Canon and Zeiss Lenses
  • NHBubbaNHBubba Registered Users Posts: 342 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    DanielB wrote:
    like i said, give me a FF camera over a 1.6 or 1.3 any day... i enjoy shooting landscapes and i just can't ever get wide-enough on my 10D, i sure hope canon comes out with a consumer FF this year at some point...rolleyes1.gif
    What? The 10-22 isn't wide enough for you?

    Me thinks the biggest advantage FF brings to the game is the nice, big viewfinder.

    I don't really care what size the sensor is. But if this fabled 20D replacement doesn't fit EFS glass, then I'll be in the market for a used or leftover 20D..
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    Bob Bell wrote:
    Bill, why would the target change in size? It should be exactly the same on a 20D and 1Ds. The magnification of the lens doesnt change nor the focal length. The only real difference is how much more canvas there is.

    In essence an APS-C sensor is like putting a mat box at the end of the lens.
    You are correct, in essence, that an APS-C senor is like putting a matte box at the end of the lens. My camera (20D) records a smaller part of the image circel than does a 1D Mark II, which records less than a 5D.

    However, you are wrong that the magnification of the lens does not change. Focal length is the same. Magnfication is different.

    Now, stand in one place and use the same lens, focused on the same subject, and make 8x12 prints from each camera's image. Guess what happens... You don't end up with the same image.

    While the actual focal length does not change when you move that lens from a 5D to a 20D, the effective magnfication absolutely does. Don't beleive me? A 50mm lens on a 4x5 medium format camera does not present the same magnification as a 50mm does on a 35mm camera, which is a different magnifcation on an APS-C camera, and different still than a 50mm lens on a point-and-shoot.

    Why do you think that many point-and-shoot cameras, which have very small sensors, advertise the "35mm equivalent focal lengths" of the lens?
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2006
    NHBubba wrote:
    What? The 10-22 isn't wide enough for you?

    i've got a 10D, no EF-S for me...:cry
    Daniel Bauer
    smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com

  • ScottMcLeodScottMcLeod Registered Users Posts: 753 Major grins
    edited February 21, 2006
    DanielB wrote:
    i've got a 10D, no EF-S for me...:cry

    Unless you swap out the EFs baffle for an EF baffle...

    I'm very tempted. 10mm f/3.5? sexy enough for me...
    - Scott
    http://framebyframe.ca
    [Bodies] Canon EOS 20D - Canon EOS 500
    [Lenses] Sigma APO 70-200 f/2.8 - Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 - Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 - Tamron XR Di 28-75mm f/2.8 - Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
    [Flash] Sigma EF500 Super DG Flash
    [Tripod]     Manfrotto 055 Pro Black
    [Head] 484RC2, 200RC2
  • DanielBDanielB Registered Users Posts: 2,362 Major grins
    edited February 21, 2006
    ScottMcLeod wrote:
    Unless you swap out the EFs baffle for an EF baffle...

    I'm very tempted. 10mm f/3.5? sexy enough for me...


    nod.gif i'm broke at the moment though.... lol.
    Daniel Bauer
    smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com

  • ScottMcLeodScottMcLeod Registered Users Posts: 753 Major grins
    edited February 21, 2006
    DanielB wrote:
    nod.gif i'm broke at the moment though.... lol.

    I swear, i'm very tempted to grab one and do the mod.

    Can you imagine what it would be like on a full frame?
    - Scott
    http://framebyframe.ca
    [Bodies] Canon EOS 20D - Canon EOS 500
    [Lenses] Sigma APO 70-200 f/2.8 - Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 - Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 - Tamron XR Di 28-75mm f/2.8 - Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
    [Flash] Sigma EF500 Super DG Flash
    [Tripod]     Manfrotto 055 Pro Black
    [Head] 484RC2, 200RC2
Sign In or Register to comment.