Canon EOS 7D

Hmm..

..the price of the 1D MkIII will come down, for sure. However, i doubt it'll come down to RM500 by next yr. Maybe in 15-20 yrs...
For one, the 1D MkII's prices have gone down at least more than 50%, but it's been 4-5 yrs since it first came out...
For the mid-range DSLRs, their prices will probably come down a bit faster..

..as pointed out by ae86trueno, by name, there is no dedicated "L" lenses for the APS-C type bodies. But technically, Canon have a small but growing series of EF-S lenses available, ranging from inexpensive kit lenses to very good high-quality lenses with image stabilization. There’s even a very interesting 60mm macro lens with an EF-S mount. The super wide angle EF-S 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 USM (roughly 16-35mm coverage if it were full frame) is particularly well regarded; It's interesting to note that despite the use of multiple aspherics and super UD glass, this particular lens doesn't get an "L" designation or a red ring! If it were an EF lens, it would probably be designated "L". Class discrimination? No "L" for EF-S lenses? Who knows. Not that it matters. It's how well it works, not what's written on it that counts. Only time (and testing) will tell on that score. So, is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM lens, as mentioned above, which is an L lens in all but build quality and name.

 

In theory, you lose some weight from producing a lens with a smaller image circle. Without changing the optical formula, weight reduction can only originate from outer circumferences of elements behind the aperture. Increasing the aperture by 1 stop essentially double the weight of the lens assembly.

In real life examples, none of the lens makers has done what you have proposed -- to increase the aperture by 1 stop even from image circle reduction of 2x radius (4/3 vs FF). None of Leica, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon or Olympus has done it.

I will appreciate if you can just give 1 example to support your claim instead of theorizing.

Now now, the lens I listed are Canon L and Nikon G lenses. Cheap lens?

You are totally missing the point. You said 200/2.8 for FF will be heavier than a 200/2.0 for APC-S. I brought out examples showing otherwise albeit with 300/2.8 4/3 vs 300/2.8 FF vs 300/4 FF (the former being the smallest format but the heaviest).

Red herring fallacy. What you are showing is how Hasselblad Zeiss lens has lower absolute resolving power than your 35mm lens. How is this relevant to that a larger image circle than sensor size degrades the picture?

 

ding ding ding ding.. jackpot!
with aps-c using 35mm lens, it take the good part (center).

now I will throw something in... well I was actually trying to understand why.. but has anyone ever check the AF of those FF compared to aps-c?
you will notice on FF, the AF point seem more centered overall compared to APC-C which seem spread further to the side..
Well to be honest I never really try to research but I think this is related to that 'sweet spot' mentioned by Drifit..
also, why the AF in the center is more sensitve and some body has center optimise to f2.8, IMHO this is related to this center 'sweetspot'

 

ah.. so this really confirmed my thinking..
I could be wrong but I after reading this thread, I got impression that Canon should not actually make 7D APS-C, this could screw up the xxD line.
making 60D powerful (close to 7D) and it will kill 7D market, making it far from 7D... why not just call it 50D2 and it wont sell well.
IMHO Canon should make 7D APS-H so it directly inline with 1Ds to 1D as with 5D to 7D. and keep xxD line separate enough to see real difference between xxD line with 7D line.

 

No lah, just outdated. When I learnt photo-taking, we used the good ol SLRs, buy 2nd hand cost RM400 to RM500 only . Even then, out of a class of 70, only 2 could afford to get extra lenses, filters, etc to practice more.

After reading all the fun you all having, wanted to get back in, now even more expensive :crying:. Oh yeah, I agree with you, it's the skills that's important, not latest tech.

 

yep you could be right, at the moment xxD is squished in between xxxD and 7D. the spec from xxxD is getting closer and closer to xxD line, and 7D being APS-C kinda killed xxD

 

Observation by drifit concurs with the most MTF charts that the resolving power in the centre of the lens tends to (much) better than the outer edges.

However, I do not think centre AF being most sensitive have anything to do with the MTF charts. I believe it is a design decision that is aligned with the way photographers tend to prefer to use AF.

Imagine when area AF does not lock on the correct subject. The fastest way to acquire focus is to choose a single AF sensor. In most cases, the centre sensor is chosen. This is particularly true for event coverage when the scenary is fairly dynamic. Stick with the centre sensor, AF and re-frame is much faster than relying on the camera's AI. As a result, the centre sensor is usually the most sensitive.

Then, of course, there was canon's eye controlled focus.

 

This just crossed my mind..

..if Canon were to dump its xxD line and start their new trend from 7D and then 8D and then 9D, what then comes after 9D if not the.........(dink, dink, dink, dink).....or maybe it's more of a naming convention..
*I have a funny feeling Canon might release a 2D, 3D and 4D line in the future..

..the latest and greatest tech might not be important, but in certain scenarios/situations, (using/selecting) the (appropriate) equipments matter more than the person's skills/ technique..

 

But the thing about digital SLR's is that you pay for the picture taking costs wayyyy... upfront. Other than the shutter expiring, and ther little bits of wear and tear, there is virtually no limit to how many shots you can derive out of a digital SLR. Unlike traditional film, where every frame is precious. A standard 36 frame roll with development and print in 4R costs like RM$40 a pop ? Not to mention the typical 20% or more of wasted frames in its roll.

Shooting 400 frames with a DSLR is a no-brainer really as long as your memory card can take it. And the best part is 36 shots or 36,000 shots, or for that matter 136,000 shots, its the same US$1,700 shots . Even with a typical keeper rate of 20%, and you print all of them in 4R or 5R. Its still cheaper by a huge margin to enjoy photography compared to film !!

You need like to develop 10 rolls of film to get about 300 worthy photos (at best for 80% keeper rate), in typical costs say like that in Malaysia, that's about RM$400!?

Carefully selected 300 shots out of say 1500 costs perhaps RM$240 to print ? Try extrapolating that over 30,000 prints, and the cost differences are tremendous! Amortize that over the initial cost difference to buy a DSLR and its still way cheaper!

So, the real costs of ownership for photography has really come down.

 

While yes, the center is tend to be used alot but I still think its more than that.

This taken from Canon site itself

Link is: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos50d/02.html#03

To my understanding, the center is more sensitive and it does make sense to put the better sensitive AF in the center due to MTF also (the resolution rather than contrast in the MTF table).

 

This is very true and its one of the main advantage, cost over the long run.

To add also, with DSLR you got versatility. say you take photo and suddenly the lighting changed to darker or brighter. You can easily change your ISO within a touch of button. with film, you can't.. you stuck with the roll you have in your camera.
DSLR you can 'chimp' also (term I learn from canon forum... lol) what it mean is you can view your photo on your DSLR screen. if it bad or suddenly you realise you have wrong setting then you can correct it and shoot again (happened to me quite alot). with film no way you can see before you process your film.

 

The best thing about the Canons is... they seem to have made Nikon lower the prices . Maybe I could afford the D700 - heard that in some places could get one for about US 2,100 - sooner than I expected.

 

Yep, I normally check before shooting but there are times when things changed and I forgot about changing the setting too.. Especially when I start learning using M.
hahaha yeah very true.. the shuttle... very very pricey

dang.. I want D700 too... IMHO D700 is better than D3. more versatile for cheaper price. but Nikkon's lenses are very pricey..

 

I think quality wise, the D3 is better. D700 may be better on cost/quality.

Nikon lenses are expensive but very good quality. I have the 80-200 2.8, very sharp but a bit slow due to its age... But there are quality lenses from Sigma, Tokina or Tamron which are a bit more affordable.

Let's wait and see how the market evolve

 

Haha! Good try, but I would not mind exchanging with a Nikor 70-200 2.8 VRII.

 

RLOL, Gladius, you sound like a camera salesman.
At the end of it, it's a matter of affordability, whether it was the old film SLR(good proper one) or DSLR, not within my range, esp in these economic times.

Someone mentioned abt lighting, for film it can be adjusted in the darkroom, that was the fun of film photography. Other than learning the basic technicalities of how to be a 'real' photographer. Nowadays, technology does half the work already.