30D, 3D, and 1Ds RS

blackwaterstudio · February 15, 2006

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/354076/0

Discuss

Malte · February 17, 2006

http://www.dphotojournal.com/canon-eos-3d/

canon_eos3da.jpg

Malte

Andy · February 17, 2006

::>DROOL<:: 40 f/1.2L

pathfinder · February 17, 2006

Eye Control like the EOS 3 film camera?? Interesting.

Malte · February 17, 2006

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=16792169

Malte

DanielB · February 17, 2006

god i want that lense/camera.

look out, Mr. Secret plan has got his cogs a turnin'

lynnesite · 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.

Taxes, eh.:uhoh

Bob Bell · 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.

pathfinder · February 19, 2006

Canon makes a good 20mm??

DanielB · 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

Red Bull · 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.

DanielB · 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.

David_S85 · 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.

DanielB · February 20, 2006

true David... hopefully they come out with a Consumer FF,

i would buy it in a heart-beat

gus · 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.

mercphoto · 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?

DanielB · 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 yet

mercphoto · 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 yet

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.

DanielB · 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...

Bob Bell · 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

mercphoto · 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.

Bob Bell · 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

mercphoto · 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.

DanielB · 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.

Bob Bell · 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.

NHBubba · 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...

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..

mercphoto · 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?

DanielB · 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

ScottMcLeod · 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...

DanielB · 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...

i'm broke at the moment though.... lol.

ScottMcLeod · February 21, 2006

DanielB wrote:

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?

30D, 3D, and 1Ds RS

Comments