My most wanted list, anything more to add?

[Benjamin]

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]My most wanted list from Canon, anything more to be added?
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]14-24/2.8L &ndash; Nikon has one and it&rsquo;s phenomenal.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]New 24-70/2.8L IS &ndash; I know people want it.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]New 35/1.4L II &ndash; I want it and will buy regardless the cost, I found myself use 35mm an awful lot and I desire huge aperture at this focal length.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]50/1.0L &ndash; Just bring it back and replace the current not so greatbut overly expensive 50/1.2.
<p style="text-justify: inter-ideograph; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]200-400/4L IS &ndash; Nikon has one, and is appreciated.
<p style="text-justify: inter-ideograph; margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]EOS 1D Mark IV &ndash; I know this camera will arrive just in a while. Hopefully it can match D3 in performance, FF and IQ while surpass it by offering better resolution. I will get one when available.

[SupraSonic]

1. EF 135mm F 2 L


2. EF 300mm F4 IS L


3. Canon 1Ds MK IV

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Nothing fancy, just an EF 500 f/4L IS for me

[Sean Setters]

The Nikon CLS system is superior to Canon's wireless ETTL flash system. How about building a 580EX with RadioPopper capabilities built in (and possibly a more friendly user interface)?

[Bob]

I vote for the 200 - 400 IS f4

[EdN]

A reasonably priced, compact, andfast focusing500 F5.6 L ISwould really be useful.

[Colin]

<span style="font-size: medium; color: #545454;"]<span style="font-size: medium; color: #545454;"]









<span style="font-size: medium; color: #000080; font-family: Book Antiqua;"]

<p class="MsoNormal"]
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]
<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]New 35/1.4L II &ndash; I want it and will buy regardless the cost, I found myself use 35mm an awful lot and I desire huge aperture at this focal length.
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]50/1.0L &ndash; Just bring it back and replace the current not so greatbut overly expensive 50/1.2.
<p style="CLEAR: both"]
<p class="MsoNormal"]
<p class="MsoNormal"]I'm quit happy with the original 35 f/1.4L. Better's always nicer....
<p class="MsoNormal"]Now, a sharp 50mm L lens that can focus reliably at multiple apertures.... yeah, I'd buy one immediately. Until then, unless they can 'fix' my 1.2, if the 1.4 works properly, I'll probably trade in towards that.
<font size="4" color="#000080" face="Book Antiqua" style="font-size: medium;"]
<p class="MsoNormal"]
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"]

[Groundfault]

Ef 17-70 f2.8 IS L

[Benjamin]

I'm quit happy with the original 35 f/1.4L. Better's always nicer....






<p class="MsoNormal"]Now, a sharp 50mm L lens that can focus reliably at multiple apertures.... yeah, I'd buy one immediately. Until then, unless they can 'fix' my 1.2, if the 1.4 works properly, I'll probably trade in towards that.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>






I will use the 35/1.4L mostly wide open, just thinking if Canon can replace the current with the latest design that delivers excellent optical quality at wide apertures that will be great! I'm not interested in its stopped down performance as I will have my 24-70 to take care of it.


I'm actually thinking of getting the Sigma 50/1.4 if a good Canon 50mm doesn't show up. Again, wide open performance is what i'm looking for, probably is what most people will pay attention on as well. There hasn't been a 50mm lens faster than f1.2 that is very sharp, but the aperture itself will be worth the money. My bottom line is to live with the Sigma, as it turns out to be not bad:)

[Benjamin]

Ef 17-70 f2.8 IS L
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



That would be nice, but my 16-35/2.8L will go retire...[:(]

[peety3]

The Nikon CLS system is superior to Canon's wireless ETTL flash system. How about building a 580EX with RadioPopper capabilities built in (and possibly a more friendly user interface)?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I'll bite: what makes Nikon CLS superior?

[Daniel Browning]

EF 800mm f/11 L IS. $1,700. Manual focus only. (Same 72mm aperture as 400mm f/5.6, just longer.)


EF 20mm f/1.2 L, $4,000.


EF 12-24 f/4 L, $2,500.


EF 135mm f/2 L IS, $1500.


EF 300mm f/5.6 L IS Macro, $1,500.


EF 35mm f/1.2 L, $3,000.


EF-S 16mm f/1.2 L, $3,000.


EF-S 31mm f/1.2 L, $2,000.

[ShutterbugJohan]

EF 300mm f/5.6 L IS Macro, $1,500.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








That would be awesome. :-)


Also 100/2.8L Macro IS USM and 180/3.5L Macro IS USM

[Colin]

EF 20mm f/1.2 L, $4,000.


EF 12-24 f/4 L, $2,500.


EF 35mm f/1.2 L, $3,000.


EF-S 16mm f/1.2 L, $3,000.


EF-S 31mm f/1.2 L, $2,000.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I like all of your suggestions, particularly the 800mm f/11 manual focus, though the above quoted items, I was wonndering why they'd have to be so expensive. Short focal lengths, even at a wide aperature, shouldn't need that much glass, should they? Particularly if it's an EF-S format. Aside from going a little wider (in a zoom) and a little faster (on the wide angles), are we getting something more to justify the price?


Not trying to be critical, just interested in your thoughts.

[Daniel Browning]

I was wonndering why they'd have to be so expensive. Short focal lengths, even at a wide aperature, shouldn't need that much glass, should they? Particularly if it's an EF-S format.


Part of it is the recent trend for Canon to have much higher prices on new lenses without increasing the price of their existing lenses much. In other words, the current lenses are much more of a bargain. The other factor is my guesses based on a limited understanding of costs related to f-number, focal length, aberration correction etc. I'm not a lens designer or marketing exec, so take this with a big grain of salt.


EF 20mm f/1.2 L for $4,000: he Leica 20mm f/1.4 is $5,000, but it's low volume and you pay more for the brand name. I think a Canon equivalent would be much less, IMHO, but I'm talking about f/1.2 which is much more, and Canon has to clear a much longer flange focal length, with means retrofocal design, more elements, and more correcting elements, such as at least one additional UD or asph, so we're back up to $4,000 for the 20mm f/1.2. Plus I think the base price will be high enough to restrict the volume, which means and even higher price as R&amp;D is amortized over fewer units.


My guess on the 12-24 f/4 L is about focal length and sharpness. That last 2mm at the wide end is a *lot*, and if quality isn't compromised then I guess cost would go up. Also, since the Nikon 14-24 is eating Canon's lunch and mopping the floor with their ultrawides, it will have to be even better, which again will boost the cost above Nikon's $1750.


The 35mm f/1.2 L. Look at the the 85mm f/1.2: it is one stop faster than the 85mm f/1.8, and build quality, for 5.2X the cost. The 35mm f/1.4 already has good build quality. If it were new today (no changes), I think it would be $1,500 instead of $1,200. If a full stop costs 4X the cost, I'd guess that a half-stop of aperture costs 2X the cost: $3,000.


The EF-S 16mm f/1.2 L for $3,000 is basically the same story as the 20mm f/1.2, with a few differences: slightly longer focal length (cheaper), longer flange focal distance relative to lens design (more expensive), wider market appeal (chaper), higher resolution required for higher pixel densities (more expensive). In the end I think it comes out to 25% cheaper than my guess for the 20mm f/1.2 L.


The EF-S 31mm f/1.2 L for $2,000. This is the same story as the last lens, except we start with a $1,400 base price of the 50mm f/1.2 L, and factor in flange focal length problems and higher resolution required.


Of course, it would really nice to have an actual lens designer to comment on the real costs and marketing executive to comment on the true relative margins and pricing strategies.

[Joel Bookhammer]

Why would canon create an "L" series lens in an EF-S mount? Such astheEF-S 16mm 1.2 L mentioned in one of the last posts? In my opinion it defeats the purpose of an L lensbecause it couldnt be used on a pro body. Just a thought.


All the suggestions made so far are great. I would really like to see a camera body with a internal flash command.





thanks

[Daniel Browning]

Why would canon create an "L" series lens in an EF-S mount?


For the same reason they do everything else: to make money. They could also come out with a "pro body" for the 1.6X format, just like Nikon did, which would be better for sports and wildlife shooters than a full frame body.

[Oren]

Why would canon create an "L" series lens in an EF-S mount? Such astheEF-S 16mm 1.2 L mentioned in one of the last posts? In my opinion it defeats the purpose of an L lensbecause it couldnt be used on a pro body. Just a thought.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Not exactly true, they had a super-zoom with an L glass: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/ ("http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/)


If they had a non-SLR body with an L lens, I don't see a reason why not an L EF-S... Canon: WAKE UP!!!

[Joel Bookhammer]

It would be nice to have a "pro" body in a 1.6 non full frame sensor, if I remember correctly the 1D Mark II and II N where a non full frame 1.3 but a newer "pro" body with a 1.6 would be nice. It would be nice also to have better weather sealing on the next XXD series as well as the next XD.


Oren sense that super-zoom have they created an L series lens on a non-slr? It would be nice to have new L series lenses that didnt cost a small fortune, but having them as an EF-S would make them obsolete if you moved to a full frame sensor.


Thanks

[peety3]

For the same reason they do everything else: to make money. They could also come out with a "pro body" for the 1.6X format, just like Nikon did, which would be better for sports and wildlife shooters than a full frame body.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





But image quality suffers when you try to put a high number of pixels into a smaller space - less light hits an APS-C rectangle than an APS-H rectangle than an APS rectangle, and that light has to get divided amongst all of the pixels. I suspect that's one of the main reasons that the 1Ds3 has one less stop of ISO than the 1D3. If image quality suffers, less pros will buy the body, and they won't make (as much) money.

[Daniel Browning]

But image quality suffers when you try to put a high number of pixels into a smaller space


I disagree. In ample light, a small sensor with more pixels has higher resolution than a large sensor with fewer megapixels. The 50D puts out images with more detail than the 5D1, for example. Noise and dynamic range, though, are of course better with the larger sensor (number of megapixels has nothing to do with it).



less light hits an APS-C rectangle than an APS-H rectangle than an APS rectangle


Not necessarily. If you're using the fastest, longest lens you can afford (or carry), then all the systems get the same amount of light falling on the sensor. That's why I brought up sports and wildlife photographers, because they will benefit the most from a 1.6X pro system.



I suspect that's one of the main reasons that the 1Ds3 has one less stop of ISO than the 1D3.


If that were the case then it would be the other way around, as the 1Ds3 with the same exposure has less noise.

[peety3]

But image quality suffers when you try to put a high number of pixels into a smaller space


I disagree. In ample light, a small sensor with more pixels has higher resolution than a large sensor with fewer megapixels. The 50D puts out images with more detail than the 5D1, for example. Noise and dynamic range, though, are of course better with the larger sensor (number of megapixels has nothing to do with it).





Image quality != resolution, and you seem to have missed that point.







less light hits an APS-C rectangle than an APS-H rectangle than an APS rectangle


Not necessarily. If you're using the fastest, longest lens you can afford (or carry), then all the systems get the same amount of light falling on the sensor. That's why I brought up sports and wildlife photographers, because they will benefit the most from a 1.6X pro system.





No, if the lens is the same, aperture/shutter is the same, and the camera is positioned the same (since pro sports shooters will all be in the photog pit, etc.), the APS-C sensor gets less light. Some of the photos passing through the lens land on black plastic on all sides of the sensor, so less photons (less light) is left for the sensor.







I suspect that's one of the main reasons that the 1Ds3 has one less stop of ISO than the 1D3.


If that were the case then it would be the other way around, as the 1Ds3 with the same exposure has less noise.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Under a given light source, at a given ISO, aperture, and shutter combo, a particular pixel should be a particular numeric (digital) value. That comes from an analog device, the sensor, and its companion amplifier(s) and the resulting processing by the DiGiC chip(s) inside the camera. There's less light on a per-pixel basis hitting a 1Ds3 sensor than a 1D3 sensor, so the amplifiers/processors have to recover more data to bring the image up to the same digital value.


I can't find an online reference to point you towards, but if you were to put a particular lens on a 1Ds3 and a 1D3, take the same picture through both cameras, then crop away the pixels in the 1Ds3 picture until you had the same framing in the 1D3 picture, you'd find that the 1Ds3 has about 15MP inside an APS-H frame. The 1D3 has 10MP in that space. Those 5 extra megapickles have to get light somehow; they're sharing it with the other 10MP. The DiGiC chips in the 1Ds3 are having to boost the image more to match the same on-screen brightness you see. If it has less noise, that's great; it's probably why the camera has a slower frame rate.

[Jon Ruyle]

Dan has an interesting list- in particular, the long slow lenses... I've often wondered why they aren't more of them made, *especially*macro, where the reach is very useful and (very expensive) wide aperture isn't. Part of the problem with a long macro, though, is the huge amount of travel required... to be able to focus on infinity and at 1x, a 300mm macro would require a foot (300mm) of travel. So it might be a heavy tube. On the other hand, it would have barely more aperture-- and probably less glass-- than lightweights like the 100mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8.


I've noticed that slow lenses tend to be more expensive than faster ones of the same aperture. (For example, 400mm f/5.6 costs more than 200mm f/2.8, 800mm f/5.6 costs more than 400mm f/2.8). Faster optics of a given aperture should be much less expensive to make, so I'm not sure why this is. Anyone out there have a clue?


I happen to own a very sharp 800mm f/8 lens manual focus lens (otherwise known as a 4" refracting telescope), and it cost under $2000. One can get them cheaper than that, and I would say that in general, telescopes (refractors, anyway) can make decent long slow mf lenses if you are aware of certain drawbacks. Below is a link to a sample pic. (I'm not holding it up as an example of good photography, mind you :), or even as a good use of the 800mm f/8. It's just what I got when I told my daughter to stand still 20 feet from the lens). The sharp vignetting is caused by a star diagonal, which I didn't have to use. The pic is much sharper than it looks in this scaled down version (a 100% crop reveals more detail, like tiny wrinkles on my 6-year-old daughter's perfect skin).


http://picasaweb.google.com/jonruyle/January2009#5301770473802868274

[Daniel Browning]

Image quality != resolution, and you seem to have missed that point.


"Image quality" is nebulous. I broke it down into resolution, noise, and dynamic range. What other important factors did you have in mind?



No, if the lens is the same, aperture/shutter is the same, and the camera is positioned the same (since pro sports shooters will all be in the photog pit, etc.), the APS-C sensor gets less light. Some of the photos passing through the lens land on black plastic on all sides of the sensor, so less photons (less light) is left for the sensor.


Those photons might as well be falling on black plastic, because the part of the sensor they are falling on will have to be cropped to get the same magnification as the APS-C. (If the bigger sensor had a longer lens, then it would have the same magnification, but we already established that they're using the longest lens they can afford or want to carry).



There's less light on a per-pixel basis hitting a 1Ds3 sensor than a 1D3 sensor


Less light per pixel combined with many more pixels results in more total light.



then crop away the pixels in the 1Ds3 picture until you had the same framing in the 1D3 picture


In that case, the total amount of noise will be the same at similar output sizes (spatial resolution).


<span class="post"]99% of photographers, reviewers, magazines, etc.
focus on pixel size when total sensor area is what matters to light
gathering ability and noise. If pixel size were the most important
factor, then a small sensor with big pixels would outperform a larger
sensor with small pixels, but that is the opposite of reality.

The
common mental model for "small pixels are noisier" goes like this: a
single pixel, in isolation, when reduced in size, has less sensitivity,
more noise, and lower full well capacity. (So far, so good.) Therefore,
a given sensor full of small pixels is worse than the same sensor full
of large pixels. (Incorrect.)

The correct mental model is to
forget about pixels and think about light. The amount of light falling
on a given sensor area does not change, no matter the size of the
pixel. Large and small pixels alike record that light falling in
certain positions. Both reproduce the same total amount of light when
displayed; one just does it with greater accuracy.

The principle reasons that the myth persists are the following mistakes made when comparing data from pixels of different sizes:


<ul type="square"]
<span class="post"]
Unequal spatial frequencies.

Unequal sensor sizes.

Unequal processing.

Unequal expectations.

Unequal technology.


[/list]


<span class="post"]
One
good example is a chart of noise power and spatial frequency. Many
claim that the 50D is noisier than the 40D because it has much smaller
pixels. The following chart by Emil Martinec shows why reality doesn't match the claims:


<span class="post"]
http://theory.uchicago.edu/%7Eejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/Noise/40d-50d_noisepower-norm.png ("http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=bbb03fa9c87055adf6da0c7e89c4b46c&amp;showt opic=29801&amp;st=20&amp;p=241562&amp;#entry241562)

[Daniel Browning]

I've noticed that slow lenses tend to be more expensive than faster ones of the same aperture. (For example, 400mm f/5.6 costs more than 200mm f/2.8, 800mm f/5.6 costs more than 400mm f/2.8). Faster optics of a given aperture should be much less expensive to make, so I'm not sure why this is. Anyone out there have a clue?


I've wondered about this a lot as well. In the case of the 200 f/2.8, I think the reason is aberration correction. The 400 f/5.6 is corrected to a much higher standard than the 200 f/2.8. In fact, the 400mm f/5.6 has even less aberrations than the 400mm f/2.8 (when both are wide open).


The 800mm f/5.6 is definitely an outlier. Some have postulated opportunism on Canon's part, but who knows what the reason is.

[Colin]

While It's fair to say that closer pixels mean more noise per pixel, it's not more noise, necessarily, if you consider that more pixels means finer filtering of noise (and less loss of detail in the process).


At the same time, if you have a lens that can support a full frame sensor, a full frame sensor will in fact get more light. It gets all the light that would hit a 'crop' sensor, and on top of that it gets the light around it. More light, more signal to noise, in an analog fashion.


Now, where a crop sensor REALLY would be handy, from a weight perspective, is if you can get an EF-S lens, which doesn't have to have all the glass necessary for supporting a full frame sensor. Otherwise, if you've got the same pixel density, you can just crop a full frame for the same result.


Want lighter or longer? CROP!


of course, you do lose image detail in the optics if you crop, regardless of your pixel density, but that's true on any lens, and why larger format cameras have an easier time, everything else being equal, getting more detail.

[peety3]

There's less light on a per-pixel basis hitting a 1Ds3 sensor than a 1D3 sensor


Less light per pixel combined with many more pixels results in more total light.





Nope, you can't invent more light here.






<span class="post"]
One
good example is a chart of noise power and spatial frequency. Many
claim that the 50D is noisier than the 40D because it has much smaller
pixels. The following chart by Emil Martinec shows why reality doesn't match the claims:


<span class="post"]
http://theory.uchicago.edu/%7Eejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/Noise/40d-50d_noisepower-norm.png ("http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=bbb03fa9c87055adf6da0c7e89c4b46c&amp;showt opic=29801&amp;st=20&amp;p=241562&amp;#entry241562)






<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





You'd have a point, if we were comparing apples to apples. Instead, we're talking a newer generation sensor and a newer generation processor. Assuming it was possible to replace the 50D's DiGiC IV with a DiGiC III, you'd have more noise in the 50D.

[Daniel Browning]

Nope, you can't invent more light here.


Right, it's only more light if it's a larger sensor. (Once you crop the sensor down to the same size, it's the same light.)



You'd have a point, if we were comparing apples to apples. Instead, we're talking a newer generation sensor and a newer generation processor. Assuming it was possible to replace the 50D's DiGiC IV with a DiGiC III, you'd have more noise in the 50D.


The processor only applies to JPEG, not the capabilities of the sensor. I wasn't trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison, I was just pointing out the incorrectness of the 40D superiority. In any case, there is no such thing as apples-to-apples because no matter how similar something is, it will never be the same. Even unit-to-unit variation can cause differences.

[Sean Setters]

The Nikon CLS system is superior to Canon's wireless ETTL flash system. How about building a 580EX with RadioPopper capabilities built in (and possibly a more friendly user interface)?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I'll bite: what makes Nikon CLS superior?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Damn those wonderful forward/backward buttons on my mouse. I love those buttons, but I wrote a big long reply and it was gone in an instant because I accidentally hit the "BACK" button on my mouse. *sigh*


Ok, to sum it up:


1.) Nikon has been building optical slave capabilities and/or PC sync ports into their flashes for years. Canon only recently incorporated a PC port into its latest model, the 580EX II. In order to get the same functionality, a Canon user (not using a 580EX II) must purchase a hotshoe with a PC port.


2.) A Nikon body can use its pop-up flash to control off-camera flashes. A Canon user must purchase additional equipment (either a master flash, or an ST-E2), both of which are pricey. Also, because a Nikon body can use its pop-up as a commander, you can adjust your flash settings from the camera body rather than using a camera-mounted flash (which, I'm sure, is somewhat easier).


3.) This is trivial, but worth a mention. Once the flash goes into power-saving sleep mode (when off camera), you can wake a Nikon flash up by hitting the test fire button on your triggering system. A Canon flash requires that you touch a button on the flash itself. This is important if you happen to have your flash on a tall lightstand and don't shoot for a little while (which happened to me while shooting a 50th wedding anniversary...I had to disable the power-saving auto-off feature through a custom menu option).





There's my take on it.

[Groundfault]

A Volkswagen will always be a Volkswagen. It will never be a BMW...

[Jargon]

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]14-24/2.8L &ndash; Nikon has one and it&rsquo;s phenomenal.



The problem with a 14mm lens is that it is too concave to support a filter thread. And I can't imagine shooting landscapes without the option to use a CPL filter.







<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]EOS 1D Mark IV &ndash; I know this camera will arrive just in a while. Hopefully it can match D3 in performance, FF and IQ while surpass it by offering better resolution. I will get one when available.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>





EOS-1D Mark IV that has both a super-fast frame rate and a full-frame sensor, now that would be something!

[Keith B]

I'd bet a decent amount of money the 1D IV will be FF.


If it is, I will have a hard time not buying it. I'll probably sell my 5D2.


I'd love to have the focusing speed. 5D2 really lacks on the outer focus points even on fast lenses.

[Benjamin]

The problem with a 14mm lens is that it is too concave to support a filter thread. And I can't imagine shooting landscapes without the option to use a CPL filter.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I don't find myself use CPL very often in general. I don't use CPL on wide angle lenses especially when the sky is in the picture, since it will result in uneven polarization. Just personal taste. I will not discard a 14-24 just because it doesn't take filters...

[Benjamin]

I'd bet a decent amount of money the 1D IV will be FF.


If it is, I will have a hard time not buying it. I'll probably sell my 5D2.


I'd love to have the focusing speed. 5D2 really lacks on the outer focus points even on fast lenses.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Agree, that's why I went for a 50D for digital recently since it doesn't go deep into my wallet and it is fast. I somehow found thatspeed is not an issue for the9-point focusing system, however, the coverage on 5D is pathetic especially if you compare with a 1-series body... I'll be sure to get the 1D IV if it's overall better than the D3, and probably my 1V-HS will retire soon after:)

[Mr.Magic]

I'm waiting for something else: a full frame body with a 'normal' amount of megapixels. Let's say an equivalent of the D700 nikon.


If I could choose: 14 or 16 megapixel full frame sensor with gapless micro lenses, built-in flash, af-adjustment, vignetting adjustment and also adjustment for purple fringing, AF system with more Af-points, HD movie, iso from 50-25600, 6 photos/sec, 98% viewfinder.


All of these things would lead to incredible ISO performance, and real good image quality.


I would immediately buy it!

[alexniedra]

Something missing in Canon's super telephoto lineup - A 400 f4 lens with IS. Definitely possible - They made a 2.8 lens - although FAR too impractical for my use - and a 400 5.6 - which is sort of pointless in the regard of low light capabilities. This would be very successful lens if produced.

[Colin]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)


Only problem with it seems to be the DO part....


The 5.6, at 5.6 other than the IS, kicks it's butt on clarity.

[Colin]

BTW, is there something inherently screwed about 'Diffractive Optics'? What is that anyway? Last thing I heard, lenses worked by refraction. Diffraction is an effect when waves turn corners, go through holes, etc.... What gives?

[Benjamin]

Only problem with it seems to be the DO part....
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I don't really get Canon's DO. Canon makes perfect optics with L signature, why bother DO if IQ is gonna be affected.And what's the sale number anyways,is canon making any profit out of its two DO lenses?

[mukul_chou]

My wanted list:


450D at reduced price... It seems the price is on the (steep) rise.


EF-S 30mm f/1.8(or 2.0) USM with FTM &amp; distance window, 6 or 7 blade circular aparture, MM above 0.35 (0.5 would be good) that optically matches EF-50mm f/1.8


for US$250-$325

[Daniel Browning]

Only problem with it seems to be the DO part....BTW, is there something inherently screwed about 'Diffractive Optics'?





I wouldn't put it that way. It's a really neat technology for reducing size and weight. Canon says the 400mm f/4 DO is 27% shorter and 31% lighter than a non-DO 400m f/4 would be.






What is that anyway? Last thing I heard, lenses worked by refraction.


The EF Lens Book says a diffractive optical element has a diffraction grating which stands 10 microns high in a concentric circle made by a 3D ultra-high precision micro machining tool which could be controlled on the order of several nonometers. Wikipedia says the chromatic aberration produced by DO lenses is opposite in direction to that produced by refractive lenses, and so the coupling of a diffractive element and a refractive element can effectively cancel chromatic aberration.


When you look at results of DO lenses vs. normal lenses, it becomes clear that DO only makes sense if you need it shorter, lighter, and you're willing to pay for it in the form of cold hard cash and lower image quality.



why bother DO if IQ is gonna be
affected.





Because sometimes, weight and size matter more than cost and (certain levels of) image quality.






is canon making any
profit out of its two DO lenses?


I would guess that they are.

[alexniedra]

Let's think about it though:


Diffractive Optics is great technology - and the evidence is in the specs of the 400 f/4 DO IS. Significantly lighter and more compact than a regular 400 f/4 lens. That's pretty cool, but at $5,400, does not seem practical for the market. Anyone in the market for the 400 DO could probably shell out the extra $1,300 for the whole stop in light and better optical performance of the 400 2.8 IS.


Now, at 11.7 lbs, (Canon's heaviest lens in current production), the 400 2.8 IS is a indeed a very heavy (and big) lens. If size and weight are paramount, then the 400 DO IS is a better lens by a wide margin. This gets me back to the point - Canon needs a good 400mm f/4 prime equipped with Image Stabalization that doen't cost a full arm and leg.


The 400 DO IS lens is a cool lens indeed, but not very practical considering the few alternative lenses that lie in Canon's lineup.

[Colin]

I agree much.


If they even made a 5.6L IS at 400mm, it'd be way smaller than the 400 f/4, and the clarity increase would mean that you could shoot higher ISO and then noise reduction detail loss would put you in the same detail ballpark as the DO version at f/4. The 400mm f/5.6 and the 300mm f/4 IS are both relatively small lenses, physically. How much bigger and expensive would a 400mm f/4 IS, build and features along the lines of the 300mm f/4 IS, perhaps with weather sealing, actually be? Maybe I'm being unrealistic, but it would seem that $2,500 would be an achievable selling price. Am I out of my mind?

[Jon Ruyle]

I don't think you are out of your mind :)


But I do think they would charge more for a 400mm f/4. All other 100mm aperture lenses are in the $4000 range and up. Hard to say, though. Prices of existing lenses are not always what I expect, so there must be plenty I don't understand.


At $2500, I'd buy a 400mm f/4 IS.

[alexniedra]

Right on, Colin.


Canon would have two directions they could go in terms of quality of the lens and features.


One way, like you mentioned, would to make a lens similar to the 300 f/4 IS, which from what I've heard is a great lens. White (Or off-white, smartalecs), Ring USM, IS of course, maybe the retractable hood, but that depends on the optical design of the lens.


Also, Canon can go all-out on this lens. They could include the more professionally-directed features like the focus recall switch and a protective front element. This would make the 400 f/4 similar in physical design to the 200 f/2 IS. The problem being here is that I'm sure Canon would charge alot more for a lens of this caliber.


All in all, a 400 f/4 IS would be the ideal lens for any enthusiast or working professional, and would finally bridge the gap between the 400 f/5.6 and the 400 f/2.8.

[Daniel Browning]

Anyone in the market for the 400 DO could probably shell out the extra $1,300 for the whole stop in light and better optical performance of the 400 2.8 IS.


Anyone in the market for a $250,000 Lamborghini could probably shell out the extra $20,000 for an RV: a whole lot more room and much more comfortable way to travel. Or a huge 18-wheeler with 100,000 pound hauling capacity. Or a solar-powered electric vehicle that costs nothing to "fill up" (great "fuel" economy).


But someone in the market for a Lamborghini doesn't care that they could have bought a vehicle with much more room, more towing capacity, better gas mileage, or lower cost. They are looking for certain characteristics: speed and handling, and are willing to pay for them.


Same with DO lenses: someone in the market for a DO lens doesn't care that they could have bought a lens with wider aperture, better image quality, or a lower price. They are looking for certain characteristics: size and weight, and they are willing to pay for them.


I have a hard time visualizing someone who would spend 5 times the
money for a lens that has lower image quality, just because it is lighter and smaller. It sounds like you are
having a hard time imagining it, too. But you have to think about what
the target market for this kind of lens is:


Someone who can't possible stand more then four pounds for the lens, and can't fit more than 9 inches of extra gear in their pack. If you've ever hiked you know what a difference 4 pounds can make. If 9 inches is really your limit, then the next closest thing is the 300mm f/4 IS (8.7 inches).


Again, I'll take quality and price over weight and length anytime. But there really are people out there for whom it is the principle thing.

[kmackins]

I am shocked that Canon hasn't gone FF with the 1D. Afterall, it would force people to buy a 400mm or 500mm lens when they have been getting away with a 300mm x the crop factor!


Dear Canon, please make the 1D Mark IV FF! I promise that I will buy one!

[Jon Ruyle]

Me, too. If it is full frame and not substantially more expensive than the 1D III, I want it. But then, I'm not the target market :)

[Bob]

They have, it is called a 1Ds, otherwise the 1D and the 1Ds would be redundant.

[Jon Ruyle]

They have, it is called a 1Ds, otherwise the 1D and the 1Ds would be redundant.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I thought the idea was that the 1D would have lower resolution. 1D and 1Ds would be more like the Nikon D3 and D3x. Hopefully with a similar price ratio...


Nikon has shown that it is possible to make a full frame camera with a pro body that doesn't cost $6000...

[peety3]

I thought the idea was that the 1D would have lower resolution. 1D and 1Ds would be more like the Nikon D3 and D3x. Hopefully with a similar price ratio...


Nikon has shown that it is possible to make a full frame camera with a pro body that doesn't cost $6000...
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>


Yep, and Canon has shown the same thing for ~3 years. That's the 5D. It may not be a weatherproofed pro body, but as a single-digit model number it's a pro body.


Think about the heritage of the cameras. The EOS-1 was Canon's pro film bodies. When the EOS-1D came out, making sensors of size was HARD, and the APS-H was probably at the size limits of mass-produced imaging sensors. When they expanded their capabilities to a full-frame sensor, it came with resolution (11MP vs 4MP if I remember correctly) and therefore the limits of image processing meant there was a frame-rate penalty (4fps instead of 8fps). Therefore, they needed two separate models (1D and 1Ds) - why kill the 1D when it worked well for sports shooters, etc.?

[Jon Ruyle]

I should have said "1 series like body" :)


You're right about canons need for two lines. But even
if they made the 1D full frame, wouldn't they still need two for exactly the same reason? You still can't both the highest
resolution and the highest frame rate.


I'm not a 5D basher. My 5D II is, IMO, the best camera I've owned. But if canon offered a full frame 1 series body for close to the price of a 1D, I would want one.

[Bob]

Canon's goal is to make all SLR cameras full frame. Options will be the number of pixels - yield of the sensor in manufacturing. The 1D is for sports/journalist -higher frame rate (10/sec). 1Ds is all about resolution - studio work.


Ifyou look at the cost of the 5DM2 vs the 1D vs 1Ds, then you see that the 21mp full frame sensor is not driving the 1Ds' cost.

[Jon Ruyle]

Ifyou look at the cost of the 5DM2 vs the 1D vs 1Ds, then you see that the 21mp full frame sensor is not driving the 1Ds' cost.


Which begs the question... what is?

[Colin]

My guess...


It came out earlier.


They sell less of them.


Autofocus points


Weather sealing.


Physical body (vertical grip, more battery?)


Hotness.

[thomas]

Browsing for hours and hours I came up with a very convenient kit for my canon bodies, I was looking for a way to cover a great deal of photography areas, achieve a very good final result, but keep the budget in normal levels without sacrifices in quality (and without thinking of buying an automobile instead). Here is goes:





Canon 17-40mm F/4 L USM - landscape photography - 600E


Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro LensCanon - macro photography 600E


Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens (+1.4 Extender) - my most wanted, for portraits and sports (+the extender for some attempts on wildlife) 1800E (+350E extender)


Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens - I think that this lens is very good to miss, All around 950E


and a 15mm Fisheye 500E





to a total of 4700E

[Jon Ruyle]

True... when you compare the 5D II to the 1Ds III, it looks like all of that stuff is driving the cost. But when you compare the 1D III to the 1Ds III, it looks like the full frame sensor is driving the cost.


Put another way, if all of that stuff adds $4000 to the cost of the 5D II, then how is it that the 1DIII (which has all that stuff) is under $4000? If the full frame sensor adds $3000 to the cost of the 1DIII, how is it that the 5D costs only $2700?


It may be that canon charges what they do for the 1Ds simply because they can. Or maybe it costs more because they sell fewer (though, I think they sell fewer only because it costs more).


Or maybe there is some good reason it costs more to make a 1Ds III than to make a 5D II and a 1D III combined. If so, I don't know what the heck that it is.

[Colin]

the only thing I can rationalize isthat when the 1DS mkIII came out, and the pricing was set, the sensor was far more expensive, and the sales pricewas set basedon minimal manufacturing numbers as well. When the 5DmkII was introduced, making the sensor itself got cheaper and they were going to be making more of them to boot.


I'm reaching...[8-)]

[Colin]

the only thing I can rationalize isthat when the 1DS mkIII came out, and the pricing was set, the sensor was far more expensive, and the sales pricewas set basedon minimal manufacturing numbers as well. When the 5DmkII was introduced, making the sensor itself got cheaper and they were going to be making more of them to boot.


I'm reaching...[8-)]

[peety3]

1Ds3 vs 5D2 is more than just body differences - it's dual-processor vs single-processor, wider/faster data bus to accommodate frame rate, larger buffer, and a large list of feature enhancements. There are plenty of features in the 1Ds3 (and 1D3) that aren't in the 5D series and beyond. And to me, there's just a significant difference in the body that I can feel.

[Bob]

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]Jon, Colin &amp; Peety3,<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]You all are zeroing in on my point. <o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]Body cost are the same/very closebetween the 1D and 1Ds - $5K Vs $8K.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]The 5D2 is using a similar 21mp ff sensor, assume that it is the next generation of the 1Ds sensor, and then using the 50d vs. the 5D2 delta of $1,300 would be a good approx of the sensor'scost.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]If manufacturing is using similar sensor across different bodies then thevolume differences would be small between models.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]So the 1Ds is over priced by about $1,500. i.e. the sensor is not driving the cost of the 1Ds just charge what you can to make more profit.

[Colin]

Sounds reasonable.


So, when the 1Ds MkIV comes out, maybe the 1Ds will sell for a fair price? [:)]


I like the idea of a 21 MP full frame 1D mk IV camera for $3,599 too [:)]

[alexniedra]

Man, it would be nice to know the prices of the next 1D(s) Mark IV cameras. I can assure you they will totally raise the bar in industry once again.


BUT, don't count on any MSRP, because there are so many things that determine the price of the camera. I'm sure Canon will market the camera effectively, and given the trend of the 5D cameras, where the Mark II had a lower MSRP than the first 5D when it first came out, we can expect a (slightly) lower MSRP for the 1D and 1Ds Mark IV cameras.


About sensor sizes, I'm 95% sure that Canon will keep the 1D - not 1Ds - cameras with a 1.3x crop factor. Sports photographers, photojournalists, the list goes on - Really get their extra "reach" with this cropped frame sensor, but still maintain good wide angle advantages. The 10 MP of the Mark III were there for a reason - to get 10 fps. With a new DiGiC pecessor and a deeper buffer, I think Canon could easily up the megapixel count, but not up to 21.1 MP and still maintain 10fps shooting.

[Benjamin]

They have, it is called a 1Ds, otherwise the 1D and the 1Ds would be redundant.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Two FF pro bodies are certainly not redundant. They differ by having different resolution, different speed, differentHi-ISO performanceanddifferent price tag, just like what Nikon did with their D3 and D3x. They are both FF but they focus on completely different things. I personally will buy the 1D IV if it's FF (hopefully 16mp or more)with 10fps; however, the cost of a 1Ds III/IV will remain to be hard for me to justify for quite some time.


I'm also not sure if you can really say that the 1Ds III is over priced by $1500. IMO, Canon will make their 1Ds line as good as they know how to make -- and that will cost a lot of extra money, not to mention those enhancement and updates over the 1D III. I guess when it comes to 1Ds the price doesn't go proportional to its quality anymore... Nikon now has done the same or even more with their D3x, but I think it's worth the money if you pursuit the ultimate.


Canon's certainly heading towards FF on most of their bodies but I don't think (Neither Canon) that they're going to implement FF on ALL their bodies even any time soon. The 50D does have it's advantage of being reasonably fast and good handling at a very reasonable price. TheXSi is currently on sale for just $550 in Canada. I doubt anything FF (even in the foreseeable future) can match this price. Current the Rebel + xD line brings Canon 80% of the sale number, I don't see a point why they should worry about FF revolution as much as bring price down on current models. For example, to introduce anew 60D (or whatever it's going to be called) @ $800 or make thenext genRebelfor only $500 (althoughthese won't likely to happen) makes a lot more sense than making a cheap FF for $1800. Plus 1.6x sensors do have their advantage of resolving more detail and auto zooming your lens by 1.6x :)


Ben

[Bob]

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]Crop factor is not a driver, cost is - you can crop any ff image to any factor you want and simulate a telephoto lens of any length to a point. The number and size of pixels and sensor dimensions affects the yield of the sensor in manufacturing, driving cost up or down. As time goes on the yields will continue to increase, allowing larger sensors with more pixels at a lower cost to be made &ndash; as we have seen with all microelectronics. As pixels get smaller the laws of physics limit how small the pixel can get because of noise. So, noise will limit the final size of the pixel, and camera trends will be driven to have larger sensors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] <o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]As far as frame rate is concerned, the sensor electronics will get faster and faster until frame rate is not a factor any more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] How many frames/sec will a sports photographer want?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] A video camera can shoot 24 and more frames per second, so the still camera at 20 frames per second would seem to be a reasonable limit; otherwise the HD-video camera would be the next step. The smaller non-ff sensor will not be the driver for frame rate in the future.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]Given the above, the number of different SLR camera bodies will be reduced, increasing each model&rsquo;s volume, driving down their cost.<o:p></o:p>

[HiFiGuy1]

It just occurred to me that Canon could put an "APS" button on its FF cameras. Kind of a virtual sensor resizer. How cool would it be to have a button on a 1Ds Mark IV or 5D Mark III that would allow the sensor to crop and resize the image so that the viewfinder was full all the time. The frame rate could be increased, too. If a camera was comfortably a 6 fps at FF, then it could be almost 10 fps at APS-C. If you wanted an APS-H perspective instead, just press the button!


I think Nikon does this now with one of their cameras which has two settings, but it seems like maybe it works by not utilizing sensors in a pattern across the whole sensor. Wouldn't it be neat to have all three settings available on one camera? Just think, then a 70-200 lens would extend its effective range all the way out to 320 with no negative effect on the optics. It would still be an actual 70mm on the short end using FF, of course, which makes it even more versatile.


I don't think this would be technically difficult or expensive to implement, either.

[Benjamin]

Agree, I think both Nikon D3 and D700 do this if I remember correctly. It's a cool feature to have but not sure if Canon will actually do it. I personally don't see a point to mount APS-C lenses on FF asCanon doesn't have anygood EF-S optics to begin with. (don't flame me with the 17-55/2.8, I will go 24-70/2.8L on FF...[:)])

[alexniedra]

I believe Nikon has already done this. Why Canon hasn't followed is beyond me. This would increase photographic possibilities dramatically. And with resolution at &gt;21 MP, quality of 1.6x and 1.3x "crops" would still have great resolution: 13 and 16 MP respectively! This is what the 1D cameras and as well the 5D need to bring full frame shooting to the next level.


One Downside: Canon's extender sales would plumet [:)]

[alexniedra]

Hold on.. I don't think his plan involves mounting EF-S lenses on FF bodies. His idea was to have a control that automatically crops the field of view on a FF body to 1.3x or 1.6x.

[Benjamin]

Hold on.. I don't think his plan involves mounting EF-S lenses on FF bodies. His idea was to have a control that automatically crops the field of view on a FF body to 1.3x or 1.6x.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Ahh, see... It was my bad.With EF-S factor removedthen I'll raise both of my hands and feet to agree on cropping![:)]

[HiFiGuy1]

Agree, I think both Nikon D3 and D700 do this if I remember correctly. It's a cool feature to have but not sure if Canon will actually do it. I personally don't see a point to mount APS-C lenses on FF asCanon doesn't have anygood EF-S optics to begin with. (don't flame me with the 17-55/2.8, I will go 24-70/2.8L on FF.../emoticons/emotion-1.gif)
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



First of all, to be clear, the point of the post was to have the camera be FF, natively. The idea of the APS button would be to use the FF sensor full frame, or APS-H or APS-C, depending on your selection. It would always use the center portion, and just use larger areas around that up to full frame depending upon choice.


A perfect example would be this: My current 40D has a 10.1 MP sensor, and it is a1.6x crop factor or APS-C. If this were superimposed on a full frame sensor, that sensor would be approximately 16.16 MP overall. That's pretty close, BTW, to an existing (previous) sensor design, the one in the 1Ds Mark II.


Secondly, as to having only two choices, sometimes full frame or 1.6 isn't the ideal factor. As I have read Bryan say in a couple of reviews, the 1.3 factor bodies work very well with some of his favorite lenses. Wider than 1.6 and tighter than full frame. I think it would be important to have all three choices. Besides, it makes it uniquely "Canon".


Frankly, I can't see why they wouldn't do it. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. It is essentially "features for free". You don't need a new sensor. You don't really need a different DiGiC image processor. It would basically be a firmware update. I know that is an oversimplification, but you get the point. It allows a camera to morph from a high-resolution full frame studio camera to a balls-to-the-wall, 10+ fps motorsports shooting machine. All in one body.


The other important thing is that the viewfinder would be filled all the time. That part I am not sure how to implement off the top of my head. In Live View on the rear display it would be a no brainer, but TTL may be harder to solve.


Regarding the poor quality of EF-S lenses, I don't own any, but I understand the 17-55 and the 10-22 are both very high quality. I can also confirm that not all EF lenses are top of the line either. MyEF28-135 kit lens can't hold the lens bag for my current 17-40 f/4L, or the 24-105 f/4Lthat I used to have. EF-S doesn't have to be the kiss of death for a lens, it just makes it less flexible than EF lenses because it can't be used on APS-H or FF bodies.

[Colin]

Electronically controlled opaque borders in the viewfinder [:)]