Search
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Digital Rebel XT/350D

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Register or log in to remove
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <AKudnYREVZ9Ik4nfRVn-pg@rogers.com>, "Darrell" <dev/null>
wrote:

> Not linked from the webpages, but somebody found the page...
>
> http://www.pma-show.com/review/canon/001_EOS_digital_re...
>
> maybe a leak...

Sweet. I was considering the 20D but I've decided it's a little too
bulky to be an everyday camera. I do go out with a tripod and backpack
full of lenses sometimes but I also need something light for biking and
hiking. The 350D is lighter and smaller than the 300D with updated
imaging. It also adds missing features that made the 300D frustrating
at times.

If the reviews and sample photos are good, this could be my next camera.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <AKudnYREVZ9Ik4nfRVn-pg@rogers.com>, "Darrell" <dev/null>
says...
> Not linked from the webpages, but somebody found the page...
>
> http://www.pma-show.com/review/canon/001_EOS_digital_re...
>
> maybe a leak...

Yes, most definitely a leak, but my feeling is the official press
release will come on Thursday morning, so this isn't that big of a deal.

Sounds good though... looks like they're using a slightly different
sensor from the 20D - hopefully the noise performance will be the same,
if not a little better. Option of Black or Silver is appreciated.

This should make people happy:
"Mirror lock-up and 2nd curtain flash have also been added. "

Duh, Canon! About time.

This also might be interesting, but I don't see why it has to be EF-S:
"EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens."

I guess if you really want that 100mm (96, actually) equivalent focal
length.

No ISO 3200 though... I guess we'll have to push exposures (same as what
the camera does) or firmware hack later on.

No mention of price, but if they can manage the same $999 kit price
they'll do very, very well against the D70 et al.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Related ressources
Ask the community
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7de4dc259aa1e198a5d7@news.verizon.net...
> In article <GEUQd.31908$xt.28865@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
> says...
>> Interesting, did anybody besides me notice the mention, buried in the
>> text,
>> of a 60mm f2.8 EF-S lens?
>
> Yes, me... TWO minutes after you.
>
> I'll get you for this, Middleton!
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Heheheheh...
Hmmm, 96mm f2.8 equiv. Not that fast, compared to the film type 100
f2...but better than what's been offered up 'til now for 1.6 crop digital.
Of course, my 50mm f1.8 is faster, and only slightly shorter.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:GTVQd.31914$xt.13018@fed1read07...
> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c7de4dc259aa1e198a5d7@news.verizon.net...
> > In article <GEUQd.31908$xt.28865@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
> > says...
> >> Interesting, did anybody besides me notice the mention, buried in the
> >> text,
> >> of a 60mm f2.8 EF-S lens?
> >
> > Yes, me... TWO minutes after you.
> >
> > I'll get you for this, Middleton!
> > --
> > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>
> Heheheheh...
> Hmmm, 96mm f2.8 equiv. Not that fast, compared to the film type 100
> f2...but better than what's been offered up 'til now for 1.6 crop digital.
> Of course, my 50mm f1.8 is faster, and only slightly shorter.
>
The text says it's an EF-S Canon 60mm f:2.8 Macro? So f:2.8 is about right.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darrell" <dev/null> wrote in message
news:jJadnTO5R4Les4nfRVn-2A@rogers.com...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:GTVQd.31914$xt.13018@fed1read07...
>> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c7de4dc259aa1e198a5d7@news.verizon.net...
>> > In article <GEUQd.31908$xt.28865@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
>> > says...
>> >> Interesting, did anybody besides me notice the mention, buried in the
>> >> text,
>> >> of a 60mm f2.8 EF-S lens?
>> >
>> > Yes, me... TWO minutes after you.
>> >
>> > I'll get you for this, Middleton!
>> > --
>> > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>>
>> Heheheheh...
>> Hmmm, 96mm f2.8 equiv. Not that fast, compared to the film type 100
>> f2...but better than what's been offered up 'til now for 1.6 crop
>> digital.
>> Of course, my 50mm f1.8 is faster, and only slightly shorter.
>>
> The text says it's an EF-S Canon 60mm f:2.8 Macro? So f:2.8 is about
> right.
>
>
>
It's actually more than about right, it is a true macro, 1x (life size.)
Specs here:
http://www.eos-magazine.com/EOS%20system/EF-S%20lenses/...
I've learned to be a bit cynical when a lens comes out marked "macro," too
many zooms make the claim without really being macro lenses. But this one
backs it up, apparently.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bp0Rd.31929$xt.16610@fed1read07...
> "Darrell" <dev/null> wrote in message
> news:jJadnTO5R4Les4nfRVn-2A@rogers.com...
> >
> > "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:GTVQd.31914$xt.13018@fed1read07...
> >> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1c7de4dc259aa1e198a5d7@news.verizon.net...
> >> > In article <GEUQd.31908$xt.28865@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
> >> > says...
> >> >> Interesting, did anybody besides me notice the mention, buried in
the
> >> >> text,
> >> >> of a 60mm f2.8 EF-S lens?
> >> >
> >> > Yes, me... TWO minutes after you.
> >> >
> >> > I'll get you for this, Middleton!
> >> > --
> >> > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
> >>
> >> Heheheheh...
> >> Hmmm, 96mm f2.8 equiv. Not that fast, compared to the film type 100
> >> f2...but better than what's been offered up 'til now for 1.6 crop
> >> digital.
> >> Of course, my 50mm f1.8 is faster, and only slightly shorter.
> >>
> > The text says it's an EF-S Canon 60mm f:2.8 Macro? So f:2.8 is about
> > right.
> >
> >
> >
> It's actually more than about right, it is a true macro, 1x (life size.)
> Specs here:
> http://www.eos-magazine.com/EOS%20system/EF-S%20lenses/...
> I've learned to be a bit cynical when a lens comes out marked "macro," too
> many zooms make the claim without really being macro lenses. But this one
> backs it up, apparently.
>
Mind you Canon does have several existing, excellent macro lenses that offer
1:1 (and the 65mm that does 5:1). This new lens being a EF-S means you can't
swap it over to your Elan for film. Canon is making certain that film is
dead.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7de154f7387e6398a5d1@news.verizon.net...
> In article <AKudnYREVZ9Ik4nfRVn-pg@rogers.com>, "Darrell" <dev/null>
> says...
>> Not linked from the webpages, but somebody found the page...
>>
>> http://www.pma-show.com/review/canon/001_EOS_digital_re...
>>
>> maybe a leak...
>
> Yes, most definitely a leak, but my feeling is the official press
> release will come on Thursday morning, so this isn't that big of a deal.
>
> Sounds good though... looks like they're using a slightly different
> sensor from the 20D - hopefully the noise performance will be the same,
> if not a little better. Option of Black or Silver is appreciated.
>
> This should make people happy:
> "Mirror lock-up and 2nd curtain flash have also been added. "
>
> Duh, Canon! About time.
>

They also added flash exposure compensation, making flashes such as the
420EX much more useful.

Mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c7de154f7387e6398a5d1@news.verizon.net>, nospam@please.no
says...
> In article <AKudnYREVZ9Ik4nfRVn-pg@rogers.com>, "Darrell" <dev/null>
> says...
> > Not linked from the webpages, but somebody found the page...
> >
> > http://www.pma-show.com/review/canon/001_EOS_digital_re...
> >
> > maybe a leak...
>
> Yes, most definitely a leak, but my feeling is the official press
> release will come on Thursday morning, so this isn't that big of a deal.
>
> Sounds good though... looks like they're using a slightly different
> sensor from the 20D - hopefully the noise performance will be the same,
> if not a little better. Option of Black or Silver is appreciated.
>
> This should make people happy:
> "Mirror lock-up and 2nd curtain flash have also been added. "
>
> Duh, Canon! About time.
>
> This also might be interesting, but I don't see why it has to be EF-S:
> "EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens."
>
> I guess if you really want that 100mm (96, actually) equivalent focal
> length.
>
> No ISO 3200 though... I guess we'll have to push exposures (same as what
> the camera does) or firmware hack later on.
>
> No mention of price, but if they can manage the same $999 kit price
> they'll do very, very well against the D70 et al.
>

Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US) dollars.
No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7e49b47230aacc9896ab@news.individual.NET...
..
>>
>> No mention of price, but if they can manage the same $999 kit price
>> they'll do very, very well against the D70 et al.
>>
>
> Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US)
> dollars.
> No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.

Why on earth would they price it $500 higher than a 20D for a camera with
fewer features? Is your assumption based on a gut feeling that Canon
doesn't want to sell any of them?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7e49b47230aacc9896ab@news.individual.NET...
> In article <MPG.1c7de154f7387e6398a5d1@news.verizon.net>, nospam@please.no
> says...
> > In article <AKudnYREVZ9Ik4nfRVn-pg@rogers.com>, "Darrell" <dev/null>
> > says...
> > > Not linked from the webpages, but somebody found the page...
> > >
> > > http://www.pma-show.com/review/canon/001_EOS_digital_re...
> > >
> > > maybe a leak...
> >
> > Yes, most definitely a leak, but my feeling is the official press
> > release will come on Thursday morning, so this isn't that big of a deal.
> >
> > Sounds good though... looks like they're using a slightly different
> > sensor from the 20D - hopefully the noise performance will be the same,
> > if not a little better. Option of Black or Silver is appreciated.
> >
> > This should make people happy:
> > "Mirror lock-up and 2nd curtain flash have also been added. "
> >
> > Duh, Canon! About time.
> >
> > This also might be interesting, but I don't see why it has to be EF-S:
> > "EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens."
> >
> > I guess if you really want that 100mm (96, actually) equivalent focal
> > length.
> >
> > No ISO 3200 though... I guess we'll have to push exposures (same as what
> > the camera does) or firmware hack later on.
> >
> > No mention of price, but if they can manage the same $999 kit price
> > they'll do very, very well against the D70 et al.
> >
>
> Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US)
dollars.
> No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.
>
Because then it will be more than the 20D ;)  Canon has already reduced sales
of their 20D with this 20D Lite...
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darrell" <dev/null> wrote in message
news:uN2dnSSEYJJqPYnfRVn-1g@rogers.com...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:bp0Rd.31929$xt.16610@fed1read07...
>> "Darrell" <dev/null> wrote in message
>> news:jJadnTO5R4Les4nfRVn-2A@rogers.com...
>> >
>> > "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
>> > news:GTVQd.31914$xt.13018@fed1read07...
>> >> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.1c7de4dc259aa1e198a5d7@news.verizon.net...
>> >> > In article <GEUQd.31908$xt.28865@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
>> >> > says...
>> >> >> Interesting, did anybody besides me notice the mention, buried in
> the
>> >> >> text,
>> >> >> of a 60mm f2.8 EF-S lens?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, me... TWO minutes after you.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll get you for this, Middleton!
>> >> > --
>> >> > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>> >>
>> >> Heheheheh...
>> >> Hmmm, 96mm f2.8 equiv. Not that fast, compared to the film type 100
>> >> f2...but better than what's been offered up 'til now for 1.6 crop
>> >> digital.
>> >> Of course, my 50mm f1.8 is faster, and only slightly shorter.
>> >>
>> > The text says it's an EF-S Canon 60mm f:2.8 Macro? So f:2.8 is about
>> > right.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> It's actually more than about right, it is a true macro, 1x (life size.)
>> Specs here:
>> http://www.eos-magazine.com/EOS%20system/EF-S%20lenses/...
>> I've learned to be a bit cynical when a lens comes out marked "macro,"
>> too
>> many zooms make the claim without really being macro lenses. But this
>> one
>> backs it up, apparently.
>>
> Mind you Canon does have several existing, excellent macro lenses that
> offer
> 1:1 (and the 65mm that does 5:1). This new lens being a EF-S means you
> can't
> swap it over to your Elan for film. Canon is making certain that film is
> dead.
>
>
>
That's ok, I have a Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro that's pretty remarkable, but it
is a little long for the 20D. My main beef with EF-S is that it's
incompatible with my older D30 and the 1 series Digital cameras, too. There
may be one, or more, of the latter in our future.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <GTVQd.31914$xt.13018@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
says...
> Heheheheh...
> Hmmm, 96mm f2.8 equiv. Not that fast, compared to the film type 100
> f2...but better than what's been offered up 'til now for 1.6 crop digital.
> Of course, my 50mm f1.8 is faster, and only slightly shorter.

Yeah, but who shoots macro wide-open?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7e7d5c8909a4a598a5dd@news.verizon.net...
> In article <GTVQd.31914$xt.13018@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
> says...
>> Heheheheh...
>> Hmmm, 96mm f2.8 equiv. Not that fast, compared to the film type 100
>> f2...but better than what's been offered up 'til now for 1.6 crop
>> digital.
>> Of course, my 50mm f1.8 is faster, and only slightly shorter.
>
> Yeah, but who shoots macro wide-open?
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

It hadn't really hit me that this was a true Macro lens, I was just figuring
that it was one of those labeled "Macro" like the 28-135 IS. But it is a
true macro, and, you're right, max aperture is rather moot, after a point.
But if you decided to use it for a portrait lens, then max aperture may
become an issue...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c7e49b47230aacc9896ab@news.individual.NET>,
larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
> Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US) dollars.
> No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.

According to dPreview.com, it's introduced at the same price the Digital
Rebel was. $899 body, $999 kit.

"Uh-oh" say the other manufacturers. Uh-oh indeed.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7ef50d79397f3b98a5ed@news.verizon.net...
> In article <cv30jv1ahs@news1.newsguy.com>, mark@robertstech.com says...
> > >According to dPreview.com, it's introduced at the same price the
Digital
> > >Rebel was. $899 body, $999 kit.
> > >
> > >"Uh-oh" say the other manufacturers. Uh-oh indeed.
> >
> > I suspect at this price it will have the same "plastic cheeseball"
> > construction as the Rebel-D?
>
> No more plastic than any of the other sub $1,000 dSLRs.
>
> The D70 might feel more solid... but it isn't.
>
The Pentax *ist D and *ist DS have more metal than either.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <I--dnUPmncjdPYnfRVn-qA@rogers.com>, "Darrell" says...
>
> "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c7e49b47230aacc9896ab@news.individual.NET...
> > In article <MPG.1c7de154f7387e6398a5d1@news.verizon.net>, nospam@please.no
> > says...
> > > In article <AKudnYREVZ9Ik4nfRVn-pg@rogers.com>, "Darrell" <dev/null>
> > > says...
> > > > Not linked from the webpages, but somebody found the page...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.pma-show.com/review/canon/001_EOS_digital_re...
> > > >
> > > > maybe a leak...
> > >
> > > Yes, most definitely a leak, but my feeling is the official press
> > > release will come on Thursday morning, so this isn't that big of a deal.
> > >
> > > Sounds good though... looks like they're using a slightly different
> > > sensor from the 20D - hopefully the noise performance will be the same,
> > > if not a little better. Option of Black or Silver is appreciated.
> > >
> > > This should make people happy:
> > > "Mirror lock-up and 2nd curtain flash have also been added. "
> > >
> > > Duh, Canon! About time.
> > >
> > > This also might be interesting, but I don't see why it has to be EF-S:
> > > "EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens."
> > >
> > > I guess if you really want that 100mm (96, actually) equivalent focal
> > > length.
> > >
> > > No ISO 3200 though... I guess we'll have to push exposures (same as what
> > > the camera does) or firmware hack later on.
> > >
> > > No mention of price, but if they can manage the same $999 kit price
> > > they'll do very, very well against the D70 et al.
> > >
> >
> > Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US)
> dollars.
> > No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.
> >
> Because then it will be more than the 20D ;)  Canon has already reduced sales
> of their 20D with this 20D Lite...
>
>
>
>

The 20D WITH a lens would be more expensive wouldn't it??


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7ed131f8f598bd9896af@news.individual.NET...
> In article <I--dnUPmncjdPYnfRVn-qA@rogers.com>, "Darrell" says...
> >
> > "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1c7e49b47230aacc9896ab@news.individual.NET...
> > > In article <MPG.1c7de154f7387e6398a5d1@news.verizon.net>,
nospam@please.no
> > > says...
> > > > In article <AKudnYREVZ9Ik4nfRVn-pg@rogers.com>, "Darrell" <dev/null>
> > > > says...
> > > > > Not linked from the webpages, but somebody found the page...
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.pma-show.com/review/canon/001_EOS_digital_re...
> > > > >
> > > > > maybe a leak...
> > > >
> > > > Yes, most definitely a leak, but my feeling is the official press
> > > > release will come on Thursday morning, so this isn't that big of a
deal.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good though... looks like they're using a slightly different
> > > > sensor from the 20D - hopefully the noise performance will be the
same,
> > > > if not a little better. Option of Black or Silver is appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > This should make people happy:
> > > > "Mirror lock-up and 2nd curtain flash have also been added. "
> > > >
> > > > Duh, Canon! About time.
> > > >
> > > > This also might be interesting, but I don't see why it has to be
EF-S:
> > > > "EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens."
> > > >
> > > > I guess if you really want that 100mm (96, actually) equivalent
focal
> > > > length.
> > > >
> > > > No ISO 3200 though... I guess we'll have to push exposures (same as
what
> > > > the camera does) or firmware hack later on.
> > > >
> > > > No mention of price, but if they can manage the same $999 kit price
> > > > they'll do very, very well against the D70 et al.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US)
> > dollars.
> > > No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.
> > >
> > Because then it will be more than the 20D ;)  Canon has already reduced
sales
> > of their 20D with this 20D Lite...
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> The 20D WITH a lens would be more expensive wouldn't it??
>
Oddly enough the 18~55 is an option on the 20D, that is a $100 Canon lens.
The 350D/XT will sell for usd $1000. That has already been stated. Street
prices will be around $900-950 initially, down more by late-summer.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <gbf8p0j8xmrg$.15pc1dph1m7ge$.dlg@40tude.net>, deank@hotmail.com
says...
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:27:35 -0500, Larry wrote:
>
> > Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US) dollars.
> > No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021704canon_eos350d...
>
> Price is $899 for body.
>


Then I'll have to see what kind of pictures it takes...

At 8mp and a 899 price I'm not expecting much, but then it IS a Canon, and
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a GOOD one.

This is a source for consternation...

One major camera company comes out with a 4mp DSLR for $3500
Another major name brand comes out with an 8mp DSLR for $899

How to choose, how to choose.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7ed25312a93c109896b0@news.individual.NET...
> In article <gbf8p0j8xmrg$.15pc1dph1m7ge$.dlg@40tude.net>,
deank@hotmail.com
> says...
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:27:35 -0500, Larry wrote:
> >
> > > Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US)
dollars.
> > > No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021704canon_eos350d...
> >
> > Price is $899 for body.
> >
>
>
> Then I'll have to see what kind of pictures it takes...
>
> At 8mp and a 899 price I'm not expecting much, but then it IS a Canon, and
> I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a GOOD one.
>
> This is a source for consternation...
>
> One major camera company comes out with a 4mp DSLR for $3500
> Another major name brand comes out with an 8mp DSLR for $899
>
> How to choose, how to choose.
>
Apples and oranges, the Nikon D2Hs is designed for photojournalists, it's
really fast, has a huge frame buffer, and excellent image quality. I have
seen images and you would have sworn it was film. The Drebel is a consumer
level camera, with a so-so lens but is cheap. It's like comparing a Honda
Civic with a HumVee. Both have different niches.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MZydnTol4_qjjYjfRVn-jA@rogers.com>, "Darrell" says...
> Apples and oranges, the Nikon D2Hs is designed for photojournalists, it's
> really fast, has a huge frame buffer, and excellent image quality. I have
> seen images and you would have sworn it was film. The Drebel is a consumer
> level camera, with a so-so lens but is cheap. It's like comparing a Honda
> Civic with a HumVee. Both have different niches.
>
My driveway contains both a Nissan Pickup and a Hummer (consumer version) I
do have a hard time making choices, except when it comes to choosing when to
press the shutter button..


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7e49b47230aacc9896ab@news.individual.NET...
>
> Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US)
> dollars.
> No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.
>

Good idea, price it higher than the 20D ($1,500). Guess that's why you're
not in Canon's marketing dept. ;-)

Mark
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7ed25312a93c109896b0@news.individual.NET...
> In article <gbf8p0j8xmrg$.15pc1dph1m7ge$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> deank@hotmail.com
> says...
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:27:35 -0500, Larry wrote:
>>
>> > Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US)
>> > dollars.
>> > No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021704canon_eos350d...
>>
>> Price is $899 for body.
>>
>
>
> Then I'll have to see what kind of pictures it takes...
>
> At 8mp and a 899 price I'm not expecting much, but then it IS a Canon, and
> I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a GOOD one.
>
> This is a source for consternation...
>
> One major camera company comes out with a 4mp DSLR for $3500
> Another major name brand comes out with an 8mp DSLR for $899
>
> How to choose, how to choose.
>


You have to look at ALL the specs, not just pixel count.

Mark
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c7ed25312a93c109896b0@news.individual.NET>,
larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
> Then I'll have to see what kind of pictures it takes...
>
> At 8mp and a 899 price I'm not expecting much, but then it IS a Canon, and
> I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a GOOD one.

The first Digital Rebel sold for $899 body only and had the exact same
image quality as the (then) $1499 EOS 10D.

I expect Canon to repeat their past success, but I won't know for sure
until the sample images and tests come back.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <9t9Rd.32000$xt.7627@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
says...
> It hadn't really hit me that this was a true Macro lens, I was just figuring
> that it was one of those labeled "Macro" like the 28-135 IS. But it is a
> true macro, and, you're right, max aperture is rather moot, after a point.
> But if you decided to use it for a portrait lens, then max aperture may
> become an issue...

At which point f/2.8 is fine.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7ef59bbc4c0398a5ef@news.verizon.net...
> In article <9t9Rd.32000$xt.7627@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
> says...
>> It hadn't really hit me that this was a true Macro lens, I was just
>> figuring
>> that it was one of those labeled "Macro" like the 28-135 IS. But it is a
>> true macro, and, you're right, max aperture is rather moot, after a
>> point.
>> But if you decided to use it for a portrait lens, then max aperture may
>> become an issue...
>
> At which point f/2.8 is fine.
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Probably, at f1.8, there's a chance that parts of the face may fall out of
the depth of field...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7ef894901ddab098a5f5@news.verizon.net...
> In article <Q9SdnQtJ6d8TsYjfRVn-pA@rogers.com>, "Darrell" <dev/null>
> says...
> > The Pentax *ist D and *ist DS have more metal than either.
>
> Ballast?
> --
Stainless Steel chassis,

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <o7WdnSopocuuwYjfRVn-pw@comcast.com>, mbohntrash54@comcast.net
says...
>
> "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c7ed25312a93c109896b0@news.individual.NET...
> > In article <gbf8p0j8xmrg$.15pc1dph1m7ge$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> > deank@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:27:35 -0500, Larry wrote:
> >>
> >> > Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US)
> >> > dollars.
> >> > No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.
> >>
> >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021704canon_eos350d...
> >>
> >> Price is $899 for body.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Then I'll have to see what kind of pictures it takes...
> >
> > At 8mp and a 899 price I'm not expecting much, but then it IS a Canon, and
> > I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a GOOD one.
> >
> > This is a source for consternation...
> >
> > One major camera company comes out with a 4mp DSLR for $3500
> > Another major name brand comes out with an 8mp DSLR for $899
> >
> > How to choose, how to choose.
> >
>
>
> You have to look at ALL the specs, not just pixel count.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
What I need to look at is the pictures. I almost NEVER pay any attention to
specs until after I look at the pictures the camera makes.

Then I look at the specs, then the price.

The specs are worth about 10% in weighing my purchase, the pictures worth
about 60% and the rest goes to price.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c7f9666e169f67a9896b4@news.individual.NET...
> In article <o7WdnSopocuuwYjfRVn-pw@comcast.com>, mbohntrash54@comcast.net
> says...
>>
>> "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c7ed25312a93c109896b0@news.individual.NET...
>> > In article <gbf8p0j8xmrg$.15pc1dph1m7ge$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>> > deank@hotmail.com
>> > says...
>> >> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:27:35 -0500, Larry wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US)
>> >> > dollars.
>> >> > No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021704canon_eos350d...
>> >>
>> >> Price is $899 for body.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Then I'll have to see what kind of pictures it takes...
>> >
>> > At 8mp and a 899 price I'm not expecting much, but then it IS a Canon,
>> > and
>> > I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a GOOD one.
>> >
>> > This is a source for consternation...
>> >
>> > One major camera company comes out with a 4mp DSLR for $3500
>> > Another major name brand comes out with an 8mp DSLR for $899
>> >
>> > How to choose, how to choose.
>> >
>>
>>
>> You have to look at ALL the specs, not just pixel count.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
> What I need to look at is the pictures. I almost NEVER pay any attention
> to
> specs until after I look at the pictures the camera makes.
>
> Then I look at the specs, then the price.
>
> The specs are worth about 10% in weighing my purchase, the pictures worth
> about 60% and the rest goes to price.
>

Is the $3,500 Nikon out of your price range? If so, why even consider it?
If not, if you look at the specs you'll realize it's very well suited to
journalists (8 fps for 50 jpg/40 raw, wireless transfer support, magnesium
alloy frame, etc.) and maybe there are factors other than pixel count that
figure in to the price.

Mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <QN6dndsYStWSTYjfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, mbohntrash54@comcast.net
says...
> Is the $3,500 Nikon out of your price range? If so, why even consider it?
> If not, if you look at the specs you'll realize it's very well suited to
> journalists (8 fps for 50 jpg/40 raw, wireless transfer support, magnesium
> alloy frame, etc.) and maybe there are factors other than pixel count that
> figure in to the price.
>
> Mark
>


Since about 50% of my customers dont want anything larger than 5x7 as a final
product, the Nikon could be used by me, but at the price it would have to
walk and talk.

I was being faceatious when I threw the Nikon into the fray!

Still, it looks like a good camera on the page.. Ide love to se some pictures
done "in the field" with it.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darrell <dev/null> wrote:
>
> Mind you Canon does have several existing, excellent macro lenses
> that offer 1:1 (and the 65mm that does 5:1). This new lens being
> a EF-S means you can't swap it over to your Elan for film.

Exactly. Which brings up my question.

Why would anybody buy this lens?

The 50/2.5 macro is cheaper, weighs less, and gets a 4.4 rating
from Photodo.com (can't do much better than that).

It's the difference between a (crop equiv.) 80mm and 96mm lens,
one of which works with old film cameras.

Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals, or a
100-300/5.6 L with USM and ring (not trombone!) zoom, or ...
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message news:42164ab9@news.meer.net...
> Darrell <dev/null> wrote:
>>
>> Mind you Canon does have several existing, excellent macro lenses
>> that offer 1:1 (and the 65mm that does 5:1). This new lens being
>> a EF-S means you can't swap it over to your Elan for film.
>
> Exactly. Which brings up my question.
>
> Why would anybody buy this lens?
>
> The 50/2.5 macro is cheaper, weighs less, and gets a 4.4 rating
> from Photodo.com (can't do much better than that).
>
> It's the difference between a (crop equiv.) 80mm and 96mm lens,
> one of which works with old film cameras.
>
> Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
> like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals, or a
> 100-300/5.6 L with USM and ring (not trombone!) zoom, or ...
>

Well, there may be that the 60mm is shaper at the edges visible to the
sensor, or some other variable that we, collectively, are unaware of, and
will be until there are subjective tests out there.
But I will agree that Canon needs to get of their corporate butts and get
some fast zoom glass designed for the 1.6 sensor, be it EF or EF-S. Oly has
stolen a march on a company that seems to drive itself to be the first to
market, even at the expense of a little development time. Those f2.0 zooms
from Oly need an answer, now!

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The message <42164ab9@news.meer.net>
from Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> contains these words:

> Darrell <dev/null> wrote:
> >
> > Mind you Canon does have several existing, excellent macro lenses
> > that offer 1:1 (and the 65mm that does 5:1). This new lens being
> > a EF-S means you can't swap it over to your Elan for film.

> Exactly. Which brings up my question.

> Why would anybody buy this lens?

Smoother out of focus with more iris blades compared with 50/2.5
Faster focus with ring USM?
Optimized coatings for digital?
I agree the price is too high.

> The 50/2.5 macro is cheaper, weighs less, and gets a 4.4 rating
> from Photodo.com (can't do much better than that).

But 1:2 mag. not 1:1, but bargain price.

> It's the difference between a (crop equiv.) 80mm and 96mm lens,
> one of which works with old film cameras.

> Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
> like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals, or a
> 100-300/5.6 L with USM and ring (not trombone!) zoom, or ...

Deryck
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
news:2005021822170270814@deryck.com...
> The message <42164ab9@news.meer.net>
> from Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> contains these words:
>
>> Darrell <dev/null> wrote:
>> >
>
> Smoother out of focus with more iris blades compared with 50/2.5
> Faster focus with ring USM?
> Optimized coatings for digital?
> I agree the price is too high.
>
>> The 50/2.5 macro is cheaper, weighs less, and gets a 4.4 rating
>> from Photodo.com (can't do much better than that).
>
> But 1:2 mag. not 1:1, but bargain price.
>
>> It's the difference between a (crop equiv.) 80mm and 96mm lens,
>> one of which works with old film cameras.
>
>> Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
>> like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals, or a
>> 100-300/5.6 L with USM and ring (not trombone!) zoom, or ...
>
> Deryck

Where are you guys finding a price? I haven't been able to spot one...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Skip,

Skip M wrote:
> > Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
> > like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals

There is a 17-55/2.8, although with a F-Mount.


> But I will agree that Canon needs to get of their corporate butts and
get
> some fast zoom glass designed for the 1.6 sensor, be it EF or EF-S.
Oly has
> stolen a march on a company that seems to drive itself to be the
first to
> market, even at the expense of a little development time. Those f2.0
zooms
> from Oly need an answer, now!

Well, the answer is already here. A 14-35mm 1:2 on the 4/3 system has
the same abolute opening (e.g. the same light capuring capacity), the
same field of view and the same depth-of-field as a 21-52 1:2.8 on a
APS size sensor or a 28-70 1:4 on a 24x35mm sensor.

For the 35-100 1:2 of 4/3 this is 52-150 1:2.8 on APS and 70-300 1:4 on
24x25.

Regards

Benedikt
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com> wrote in message
news:1108815069.175263.196460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Skip,
>
> Skip M wrote:
>> > Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
>> > like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals
>
> There is a 17-55/2.8, although with a F-Mount.
>
>
>> But I will agree that Canon needs to get of their corporate butts and
> get
>> some fast zoom glass designed for the 1.6 sensor, be it EF or EF-S.
> Oly has
>> stolen a march on a company that seems to drive itself to be the
> first to
>> market, even at the expense of a little development time. Those f2.0
> zooms
>> from Oly need an answer, now!
>
> Well, the answer is already here. A 14-35mm 1:2 on the 4/3 system has
> the same abolute opening (e.g. the same light capuring capacity), the
> same field of view and the same depth-of-field as a 21-52 1:2.8 on a
> APS size sensor or a 28-70 1:4 on a 24x35mm sensor.
>
> For the 35-100 1:2 of 4/3 this is 52-150 1:2.8 on APS and 70-300 1:4 on
> 24x25.
>
> Regards
>
> Benedikt
>
And Canon makes what lenses that fit those descriptions? True, they make a
24-70 f2.8, but that isn't the same, relative to a 1.6 sensor. There is no
f2.8 lens wider than that, and none in the "52-150" range. And while the
physical aperture may be the same, the amount of light hitting the sensor is
different. F2 is f2, f2.8 is f2.8.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The message <IjvRd.32143$xt.5100@fed1read07>
from "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> contains these words:

> "deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
> news:2005021822170270814@deryck.com...
> > The message <42164ab9@news.meer.net>
> > from Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> contains these words:
> >
> >> Darrell <dev/null> wrote:
> >> >
> >
> > Smoother out of focus with more iris blades compared with 50/2.5
> > Faster focus with ring USM?
> > Optimized coatings for digital?
> > I agree the price is too high.
> >
> >> The 50/2.5 macro is cheaper, weighs less, and gets a 4.4 rating
> >> from Photodo.com (can't do much better than that).
> >
> > But 1:2 mag. not 1:1, but bargain price.
> >
> >> It's the difference between a (crop equiv.) 80mm and 96mm lens,
> >> one of which works with old film cameras.
> >
> >> Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
> >> like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals, or a
> >> 100-300/5.6 L with USM and ring (not trombone!) zoom, or ...
> >
> > Deryck

> Where are you guys finding a price? I haven't been able to spot one...

I think I saw 450 US dollars mentioned on one of the forums, of coarse
it may not be true.

Deryck
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
news:2005021911472870814@deryck.com...
> The message <IjvRd.32143$xt.5100@fed1read07>
> from "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> contains these words:
>
>> "deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
>> news:2005021822170270814@deryck.com...
>> > The message <42164ab9@news.meer.net>
>> > from Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> contains these words:
>> >
>> >> Darrell <dev/null> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >
>> > Smoother out of focus with more iris blades compared with 50/2.5
>> > Faster focus with ring USM?
>> > Optimized coatings for digital?
>> > I agree the price is too high.
>> >
>> >> The 50/2.5 macro is cheaper, weighs less, and gets a 4.4 rating
>> >> from Photodo.com (can't do much better than that).
>> >
>> > But 1:2 mag. not 1:1, but bargain price.
>> >
>> >> It's the difference between a (crop equiv.) 80mm and 96mm lens,
>> >> one of which works with old film cameras.
>> >
>> >> Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
>> >> like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals, or a
>> >> 100-300/5.6 L with USM and ring (not trombone!) zoom, or ...
>> >
>> > Deryck
>
>> Where are you guys finding a price? I haven't been able to spot one...
>
> I think I saw 450 US dollars mentioned on one of the forums, of coarse
> it may not be true.
>
> Deryck

Well, that matches up well with the 100 f2.8 Macro, at $470, which it is
supposed to replace, vis a vis the 1.6x sensor cameras, and Tamron 90mm
f2.8, at $480.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

>
> Well, there may be that the 60mm is shaper at the edges visible to the
> sensor, or some other variable that we, collectively, are unaware of, and
> will be until there are subjective tests out there.

(More speculation): It might have better flat-field performance, too.

Bob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
news:G6oSd.2961$Q47.981@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, there may be that the 60mm is shaper at the edges visible to the
> > sensor, or some other variable that we, collectively, are unaware of,
and
> > will be until there are subjective tests out there.
>
> (More speculation): It might have better flat-field performance, too.
>
> Bob

I don't know about Canon's 60mm in particular, but you may have something
there
as 50/60mm is commonly used for stuff like postage stamps, documents and
coins.

George
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c7eea6365e3e1bc9896b3@news.individual.NET>,
larrylynch3rd@comcast.net (Larry) wrote:
> My driveway contains both a Nissan Pickup and a Hummer (consumer
> version) I do have a hard time making choices, except when it comes to
> choosing when to press the shutter button..
So you're the SOB using all the oil up!

Iain

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <memo.20050221231534.2448F@ilba14195.www.blueyonder.co.uk&gt;,
i.laskey@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> In article <MPG.1c7eea6365e3e1bc9896b3@news.individual.NET>,
> larrylynch3rd@comcast.net (Larry) wrote:
> > My driveway contains both a Nissan Pickup and a Hummer (consumer
> > version) I do have a hard time making choices, except when it comes to
> > choosing when to press the shutter button..
> So you're the SOB using all the oil up!
>
> Iain
>


I do pay for it!

The little Pick-up is mine.

The wife needed a replacement for a Jeep Cherokee, and they dont make 'em any
more.

The Grande Cherokee isnt a Jeep, and hasn't been for years (its just a big
Dodge) as is the Jeep Liberty they replaced the old Cherokee with.

The Hummer does the job..


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com wrote:
>
>> > Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
>> > like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals
>
> There is a 17-55/2.8, although with a F-Mount.

The FD mount should prove useful for Canon DSLR wedding shooters. ;-)
Is this 17-55 lens as bad as most Canon wide-angle lenses used to be?
It's not listed on Photodo.com so I can't tell.

At first I thought you'd made a mistake about the current 17-35/2.8 L.
Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ugly car...You should like the Evolt...Look about the same...

--
_________________-
BOCH
________________
A+TECH
_________
"Iain Laskey" <i.laskey@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20050221231534.2448F@ilba14195.www.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In article <MPG.1c7eea6365e3e1bc9896b3@news.individual.NET>,
> larrylynch3rd@comcast.net (Larry) wrote:
>> My driveway contains both a Nissan Pickup and a Hummer (consumer
>> version) I do have a hard time making choices, except when it comes to
>> choosing when to press the shutter button..
> So you're the SOB using all the oil up!
>
> Iain
Register or log in to remove
 
Ask the community
Read discussions in other Digital Camera categories
!