Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Canon releases 11 new products!

maestrokev

maestrokev

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 23, 2007
875
8
Canada
According to dpreview:

Canon EOS 40D preview:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos40d/

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III preview:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos1dsmarkiii/

Canon EF 14 mm F2.8 L II USM lens:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082008canonef14mmii.asp

Canon EF-S 18-55 mm IS and 55-250 mm IS lenses:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082007canonefs18-55and55-250.asp

Canon PowerShot G9:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082005canong9.asp

Canon PowerShot SX100 IS:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082004canonsx100is.asp

Canon PowerShot SD950 IS:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082003canonsd950is.asp

Canon PowerShot SD870 IS:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082002canonsd870is.asp

Canon PowerShot A650 IS & A720 IS:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082001canona650720.asp
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
jalagl said:
I would LOVE to get my hands on those lenses. The EF-S 18-55mm IS is supposed to cost around $200. I'll wait for the reviews to appear, but, at that price, I'm seriously thinking of replacing my kit lens with it.
Click to expand...

Putting aside from the image quality of the lens (which I assume will be better than the current kit), does IS in an 18-55 really make much difference or sense?
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
^^^Probably not. I'd rather spend a bit more and get a lens like a Sigma 18-50 mm or Tamron 17-50 mm. You get a constant f2.8, even at the 50 mm end, and that's worth 2 stops over an 55 mm f5.6 anyway. That, and I have more control over depth of field.....and the photos will be prettier. IS wouldn't give me anything I really need.......not at 50 mm (which isn't very long).

I'm sure the photos from these 2 new lenses will be much better than the kit lens. That isn't saying much, though.
 
The bigger question to me is how will the 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS compare to the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS in price, image quality, and build. If it too is $200, that's going to be tempting.
 
Also, I know this is a non-issue... but i'm not a fan of the black and silver colour scheme... especially not that silver band showing focal length. I much prefer Nikon's subtle black with gold trim, or even Canon's obnoxious white L glass.
 
Thanks for posting this! I am a big fan of Canon cameras and still have my 4.0 MP Digital Elph from over 3 years ago - and it still works great! Now that I see these new models though, perhaps it's time to think about upgrading... ;) :cool:
 
epicwelshman said:
Putting aside from the image quality of the lens (which I assume will be better than the current kit), does IS in an 18-55 really make much difference or sense?
Click to expand...

I think The Digital Picture had the best response to that question. Granted it was for a different lens, but one of similar focal range.

the-digital-picture.com said:
Why put Image Stabilization into a wide angle to short telephoto zoom lens? For the same reason you put it into telephoto lenses - to reduce camera shake. Since the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens has third generation IS, it can be handheld up to 3 f-stops lower than a non-IS lens at the same focal length. Granted, a wide angle lens can be handheld at lower shutter speeds than a long telephoto lens, but being able to hold them at even lower shutter speeds is a great benefit to me. It also compensates some for the slow/narrow wide open aperture. This lens can be handheld at slow enough shutter speeds to allow significant subject motion blur when desired - such as moving water. The moving water pictures in the 17-85 IS sample gallery were all shot handheld - down to 1/3 second.

Click to expand...

Since this a similar f3.5-5.6, being able to hand hold in lower light is a large asset. It dosen't make it equal an f2.8, but it helps make up for narrower aperture.
 
The 40D and G9 are both pure ownage.
RAW in a camera as nice as the G9 is awesome, and since I need a pocket camera soon, I will probably get one for Christmas.:)

The 40D, on the other hand, is probably just a pipe dream... My Rebel XTi still works fine, but the grip annoys me to no end.
 
miloblithe said:
The bigger question to me is how will the 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS compare to the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS in price, image quality, and build. If it too is $200, that's going to be tempting.
Click to expand...

Yes, most definitely. I was considering getting a 17-85IS early next year, and a 70-300IS after that... but if this "combo" (18-250 w/IS) turn out to have good reviews, I may go for it instead of the most expensive option.
 
epicwelshman said:
Putting aside from the image quality of the lens (which I assume will be better than the current kit), does IS in an 18-55 really make much difference or sense?
Click to expand...

It does when Pentax/Samsung, Sony, and Olympus are offering IS with all of their lenses because it's part of an economical camera body. Canon are simply responding to the market.
 
Fuzzy Orange said:
The 40D and G9 are both pure ownage.
RAW in a camera as nice as the G9 is awesome, and since I need a pocket camera soon, I will probably get one for Christmas.:)

The 40D, on the other hand, is probably just a pipe dream... My Rebel XTi still works fine, but the grip annoys me to no end.
Click to expand...

I thought I read that the reason why RAW was removed from the Canon G series was that there was no discernible improvement: http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6139374-7.html
 
epicwelshman said:
Putting aside from the image quality of the lens (which I assume will be better than the current kit), does IS in an 18-55 really make much difference or sense?
Click to expand...

I'd like IS on all my lenses if it doesn't add too much more to the price or bulk. This means I can use the lenses under dimmer lighting without going with a tripod or raising ISO.
 
bousozoku said:
It does when Pentax/Samsung, Sony, and Olympus are offering IS with all of their lenses because it's part of an economical camera body. Canon are simply responding to the market.
Click to expand...

Which raises an interesting question: 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS? :D A CPS guy said it wouldn't happen, because there's no point in having IS at such focal lengths, but given that it's going into the 18-55mm ...
 
sjl said:
Which raises an interesting question: 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS? :D A CPS guy said it wouldn't happen, because there's no point in having IS at such focal lengths, but given that it's going into the 18-55mm ...
Click to expand...

It's unlikely because it's an L-series lens and it's unnecessary in that certain lens.

The 18-55mm is a shaky lens in more ways than one but for consumers, the draw is clear. There is IS in the upper half of the point and shoots, IS in the lower middle of the digital SLRs and since Canon and Nikon have already established in-lens IS, they must, must, must match features some way to get the attention of consumers.

Given the quality of the current lens, will the quality of the economical IS be of any use?
 
Wow the 40d is nice and I'm a Nikon user. I'd be tempted to see how that so-called dust free sensor does.
 
maestrokev said:
I thought I read that the reason why RAW was removed from the Canon G series was that there was no discernible improvement: http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6139374-7.html
Click to expand...

That explanation doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It sounds more like Canon didn't want to admit how noisy the sensor was by making RAW available so they hid the problem behind heavy noise reduction. The idea that noise is the only difference between JPEGs and RAW is untrue, and that's the explanation the article gives.
 
Thanks Canon, for rubbing salt in the wound...

I guess I'll still be taking shots with my non RAW G7...
 
bousozoku said:
Given the quality of the current lens, will the quality of the economical IS be of any use?
Click to expand...

Well the new lenses incorporate a UD element, and Spectra coatings that I do not believe the previous generations have, and it sounds like they felt the sting of bad reviews on the old kit lens.

Will this change the new one?

Who knows!
 
Wow, the 40D sounds incredible! FWIW, this is coming from a 1D user.

8.3 vs. 6.5 fps, no big deal, and even though the 1D has 45 AF points, the 40D does have a diagonal cross-type AF sensors, as well as 18 regular cross types. Live view and the 6 extra megapixels sound nice too.

All that said, I think the big selling points (for me) are the 14-bit RAW and silent mode operation, both of which should be great. Too bad they didn't include micro AF adjustment. Oh well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back