# Canon EOS 100D Detailed Specs Appear



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 18, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/03/canon-eos-100d-detailed-specs-appear/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/03/canon-eos-100d-detailed-specs-appear/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>A New EOS?</strong>
The following spec list has appeared on the Best Buy web site. These specifications could possibly be placeholder specs, though they appear about as legit as they come.</p>
<p>The most telling features in the spec list are the dimensions. The weight of 13.1oz make this DSLR 5oz lighter than the Rebel T4i.</p>
<p>We’re still going with the EOS 100D name, but that may not be definite.</p>
<p>Pricing for the camera is going to be $799 USD with the EF-S 18-55 IS Kit, though this is unconfirmed.</p>
<p><strong>Specifications Breakdown</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Model: 8575B003</li>
<li>18mp APS-C sensor</li>
<li>DIGIC 5 Processor</li>
<li>3″ LCD Touch Screen</li>
<li>4 fps</li>
<li>Optical viewfinder with 95% coverage and 0.87x magnification</li>
<li>9-point AF system (dual-cross f/2.8 center point)</li>
<li>Face-detect AF</li>
<li>30s-1/4000s shutter speeds</li>
<li>External hot shoe</li>
<li>ISO 100-25,600</li>
<li>HD video capture</li>
<li>LP-E12 battery</li>
<li>SDXC card slot</li>
</ul>
<p>Read more after the break…..</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col">Specs:</th>
<th scope="col">Details:</th>
<th scope="col">Description:</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Warranty Terms – Parts</th>
<td>1 year limited</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Height</th>
<td>3.6 inches</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Width</th>
<td>4.6 inches</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Depth</th>
<td>2.7 inches</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Weight</th>
<td>13.1 ounce</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Megapixels (Effective)</th>
<td>18.0</td>
<td>A camera’s image sensor resolution measured in millions of tiny dots (pixels). <i>Effective</i> megapixels — the number of megapixels actually used to capture the image — is typically slightly lower than the number of <i>total</i> available megapixels.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Image Resolution</th>
<td>Up to 5184 x 3456</td>
<td>The clarity of a digital image, determined by multiplying the number of pixels wide by the number of pixels high (e.g., 640 x 480).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Digital Zoom</th>
<td>None</td>
<td>This is not true zoom, it is merely simulating zoom by enlarging the existing image’s pixels by cropping. The actual length of the lens does not change. Digital zooming results in reduced image quality, and should generally be avoided or turned off on your camera altogether. Optical zoom is recommended to ensure crisp, detailed photos.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Lens Features</th>
<td>EF-S 18 – 55mm f/3.5 – 5.6 IS zoom lens</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Lens Focal Length(s)</th>
<td>35mm equivalent 18 – 55mm (with included lens)</td>
<td>The distance (in millimeters) from a camera’s image sensor to its lens, usually given in terms of the 35mm (film camera) equivalent. Cameras with optical zoom have a range of focal lengths, while cameras without optical zoom have a fixed focal length.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">LCD Screen Size</th>
<td>3″</td>
<td>Size of the LCD screen, in inches, measured diagonally from corner to corner.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">LCD Screen Features</th>
<td>Color TFT-LCD touch screen</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Viewfinder</th>
<td>Optical with 95% coverage and approximately 0.87x magnification</td>
<td>Provides the photographer with an approximation of what the lens is seeing. In addition to a conventional optical viewfinder, most digital cameras also provide a color LCD panel.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Image Stabilization</th>
<td>Yes, optical</td>
<td>Digitally compensates for camcorder shake so videos appear steady.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Face Detection</th>
<td>Yes</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Burst Mode</th>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>Also referred to as continuous shooting, burst mode captures multiple shots in rapid succession with a single click of the shutter. This is a useful feature when shooting subjects in motion.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Panorama Mode</th>
<td>No</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Image Stitching</th>
<td>No</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Internal Memory</th>
<td>None</td>
<td>Memory that is built into a digital camera for storing images.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Compatible Memory Formats</th>
<td>Secure Digital (SD)|Secure Digital Extended Capacity (SDXC)|Secure Digital High Capacity (SDHC)</td>
<td>Number of images that can be stored on a digital camera’s built-in memory and/or included removable memory cards. This number varies depending on the resolution of each image. The higher the resolution of the image, the more storage space it takes up.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Shutter Speeds</th>
<td>30 – 1/4000 sec.</td>
<td>The rate (typically measured in fractions of a second) at which a camera shutter opens and closes to capture an image. Slow shutter speeds are used for low-light conditions, while faster speeds are best for action shots.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Aperture Range</th>
<td>f/3.5 – 5.6 (with included lens)</td>
<td>The range, expressed in f-stop numbers, from a camera’s largest lens opening setting to its smallest. The greater this range, the more manual control and creative license available to the photographer in regard to light and focus.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">White Balance</th>
<td>Auto, preset (daylight, shade, cloudy, tungsten light, white fluorescent light, flash), custom white balance correction, white balance bracketing</td>
<td>Settings that assess and compensate for color conditions in any given lighting to ensure true-to-life color. Most digital cameras feature automatic white balance settings as well as the option to manually override such settings.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Flash Modes</th>
<td>Auto, flash on, flash off, red-eye reduction on/off, slow sync</td>
<td>Flash settings. Common modes include <i>Auto</i> (camera decides when the flash is needed), <i>Red-Eye Reduction</i> (minimizes eye reflections) and <i>Fill</i> (reduces deep shadows in bright sunlight).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">External Flash Mount</th>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>(Also referred to as a <i>hot shoe.</i>) Available on some higher-end digital cameras (usually SLR digital cameras) to allow the addition of an external flash for extra light.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Focus Range</th>
<td>9.8′ – infinity</td>
<td>Distance over which the camera is capable of focusing on the subject.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Movie Mode</th>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>Captures short, low-resolution video clips, sometimes with sound.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">ISO Equivalent</th>
<td>Auto, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12,800, 25,600</td>
<td>Measurement of a digital camera’s light sensitivity, which is equivalent to a conventional camera’s film speed. The higher the ISO, the clearer the image in low-light conditions.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Camera Dock</th>
<td>Not included</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Image Storage Capacity</th>
<td>Varies</td>
<td>Number of images that can be stored on a digital camera’s built-in memory and/or included removable memory cards. This number varies depending on the resolution of each image. The higher the resolution of the image, the more storage space it takes up.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Batteries</th>
<td>1 battery pack LP-E12 (included)</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Imaging Sensor Type</th>
<td>CMOS</td>
<td>Type of element used to convert light into a digital image. The most common types are CCD (charge-coupled device) and CMOS (complementary metal-oxide semiconductor).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Imaging Sensor Size</th>
<td>22.3mm x 14.9mm</td>
<td>Size of the CCD or CMOS image sensor, usually measured in fractions of an inch (e.g., 1/1.8″ or 2/3″). In general, the larger the sensor, the better the picture quality.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Touchscreen</th>
<td>Yes</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Color Category</th>
<td>Black</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">HD Movie Mode</th>
<td>Yes</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Smile Mode</th>
<td>No</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Waterproof</th>
<td>No</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Coldproof</th>
<td>No</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Shockproof</th>
<td>No</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Product Depth</th>
<td>2.7″</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Low-Light/High Sensitivity</th>
<td>Yes</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Max ISO</th>
<td>12801 and higher</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">Frames Per Second</th>
<td>1 – 4</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">UPC</th>
<td>013803222654</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p> </p>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2013)

An 18 MP APS-C sensor. I'm shocked, really shocked. I didn't even know Canon _had_ an 18 MP APS-C sensor, and yet here it is. Wow. Just...wow. 

:


----------



## hmmm (Mar 18, 2013)

OK... if the new entry level below the t4i is going to have the 18mp sensor, then that pretty much signals the 70D and 7D mkII will (finally) have something better.

My speculation is a dual announcement event for the 70d and 7dmkII with a new sensor technology later this spring -- the 70D available immediately, the 7D mkII somewhat later. But might as well announce them at the same time to keep the 7d mkII crowd from settling for a 70D.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 18, 2013)

hmmm said:


> OK... if the new entry level below the t4i is going to have the 18mp sensor, then that pretty much signals the 70D and 7D mkII will (finally) have something better.
> 
> My speculation is a dual announcement event for the 70d and 7dmkII with a new sensor technology later this spring -- the 70D available immediately, the 7D mkII somewhat later. But might as well announce them at the same time to keep the 7d mkII crowd from settling for a 70D.



The high end models get a new sensor first. However, the t4i did have a new sensor with its hybrid autofocus, presumably, this is the same sensor as the t4i.


So far, I don't see anything I want, but its obviously not targeted at me.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 18, 2013)

As someone who regards small size and portability to be an important criteria whem buying a camera, I must say that it looks interesting.... but it is not for me.

I wonder if it has wifi..... and what movie modes are supported.... does it record RAW... is there AFMA.... is it really the same old sensor or is it a new one... so many questions.....


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 18, 2013)

wow!

I'm suitably underwhelmed

now why would you buy this for the $200 premium over a T3i?
at least the T3i has 3x digital zoom in video mode which nothing else gets :


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 18, 2013)

Cheap enough I could consider one. My oldest daughter is showing more and more interest in photography and I have been contemplating getting her a Canon DSLR. I would also use it as a less conspicuous camera to walk around with if it's small enough.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 18, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> wow!
> 
> I'm suitably underwhelmed
> 
> ...


I think if you are coming into Canon DSLR from the P/S world it might be a very attractive option, but for those of us looking at it from the other direction your comment "suitably underwhelmed" says it all.

BTW: concerning digital zoom in video mode, the 60D has a 640x480 video mode cropped from the center of the screen..... it's really uesfull doing image stacking in astrophotography..... wonder why nothing else has it?


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

hmmm said:


> My speculation is a dual announcement event for the 70d and 7dmkII with a new sensor technology later this spring -- the 70D available immediately, the 7D mkII somewhat later. But might as well announce them at the same time to keep the 7d mkII crowd from settling for a 70D.



Based on the "projector pen" effort that they came up with for a simple IXUS/PowerShot...I don't think Canon will just drop any major body without leaks, song and dances, and elaborate teases...

Granted, very cheesy but remember what they did for the PowerShot N? The woman at the pool table holding an invicible camera...

For something significant like 7D2 we should expect a lot of slow "revelations" and build up over weeks.


----------



## preppyak (Mar 18, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> is there AFMA


For $799, not a chance in hell


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 18, 2013)

hmmm said:


> OK... if the new entry level below the t4i is going to have the 18mp sensor, then that pretty much signals the 70D and 7D mkII will (finally) have something better.
> 
> My speculation is a dual announcement event for the 70d and 7dmkII with a new sensor technology later this spring -- the 70D available immediately, the 7D mkII somewhat later. But might as well announce them at the same time to keep the 7d mkII crowd from settling for a 70D.



Or the same.... 550D and 7D....


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 18, 2013)

I hate to break it to y'all, but that's not a camera.

It's a mechanical black poodle.

No, really!

http://www.upcdatabase.com/item/013803222654

Cheers,

b&


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

preppyak said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > is there AFMA
> ...



Somehow I don't think the majority of the intended target consumers for this camera would care or know of AFMA. And I hasten to add, folks from this forum are not really representative of the mass public... we have a lot more gear heads here than an average consumer is likely to be.


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 18, 2013)

Can be a good backup/light camera...


----------



## that1guyy (Mar 18, 2013)

These specs are vague. One thing I noticed was that it had optical stabilization as "yes." Does that mean in body stabilization finally?


----------



## c.d.embrey (Mar 18, 2013)

How small is it ???
Canon 100D 3.6 H x 4.6 W x 2.7 D - weight 13.96 Oz
Panasonic Lumix G5 3.28 H x 4.72 W x 2.79 D - weight 13.1 Oz

Here's the comparison of th G5 amd T4i http://camerasize.com/compare/#347,333 The 100D is close to the G5 in size, so that's one small APS-C camera. The main difference is the height 3.28 vs 3.6.


----------



## ddashti (Mar 18, 2013)

I wonder how Canon reacts to these kinds of mishaps on retailer websites. Do they send out warnings or just choose to ignore it?


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

ddashti said:


> I wonder how Canon reacts to these kinds of mishaps on retailer websites. Do they send out warnings or just choose to ignore it?



More like Canon carefully plans the leaks...not sure however if this is legit actually...but it is a rumor afterall.


----------



## sleepnever (Mar 18, 2013)

I think Canon dilutes thier lineup with too many of the same cameras. Why would a consumer buy this vs the T4i for the same price? What's different about this and the T4i (maybe I missed that)?


----------



## DJL329 (Mar 18, 2013)

that1guyy said:


> These specs are vague. One thing I noticed was that it had optical stabilization as "yes." Does that mean in body stabilization finally?



That was the first ... okay _only_ ... thing that caught my eye. If correct, it would certainly seem to be an odd strategy for Canon, as they have been putting IS into a lot of their new lenses (35mm f/2, for instance).


----------



## kphoto99 (Mar 18, 2013)

sleepnever said:


> I think Canon dilutes thier lineup with too many of the same cameras. Why would a consumer buy this vs the T4i for the same price? What's different about this and the T4i (maybe I missed that)?


This is a very good marketing decision, I had people tell me that they would buy a SLR if it was not so big.
Compare even the Rebel to an A1 and you will see how much bigger the rebel is. I look at my old A1 and wish the modern DSLRs were as small as it was. It seems that the large DSLRs are marketed at the crowd that believes the bigger the better.
Unlike buying a P&S with a fixed lens, a purchaser of a DSLR will very likely buy more lenses, then once you have some lenses you are "stuck" with a brand of a camera.


----------



## hmmm (Mar 18, 2013)

One more random thought: Maybe this is going to be badged the *Powershot 100D.
*
The marketing department strikes again!


----------



## RGF (Mar 18, 2013)

hmmm said:


> One more random thought: Maybe this is going to be badged the *Powershot 100D.
> *
> The marketing department strikes again!



with SLR lens?


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 18, 2013)

Why am I not getting excited :-\

Dear Mr. Canon,
Can you bring your FF mirrorless soon?


----------



## simonxu11 (Mar 18, 2013)

yawn~~~~~~~~~


----------



## nwardrip (Mar 18, 2013)

Here is the "EOS-b" (placeholder name? EOS-"baby"?) page at Best Buy:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+EOS-b+18.0-Megapixel+DSLR+Camera+with+EF-S+18-55mm+Zoom+Lens/8153056.p;jsessionid=FBE3200F8A85AF839C4B49F9F8AA93AD.bbolsp-app03-131?id=1218865165970&skuId=8153056&st=8575B003&cp=1&lp=1

Only thing remotely interesting except for its size: "Hybrid CMOS AF II" which "offers a widened focusing area for enhanced speed and accuracy"

Dimensions for comparison:

EOS-M: 4.29 x 2.6 x 1.26
EOS-b: 4.6 x 3.6 x 2.7
T3/1100D: 5.12 x 3.94 x 3.07
T4i/650D: 5.24 x 3.94 x 3.11
6D: 5.71 x 4.37 x 2.8

I'm trying to figure out what would happen if 0.34" were cut off of the T3/T4i and still maintain compatibility with all possible EF lenses. Maybe no protruding Canon bulge in the front and therefore not as tall of a flash?


----------



## MrFotoFool (Mar 18, 2013)

Is it surprising to anyone else that Best Buy has it available for preorder before BH and Adorama?


----------



## AG (Mar 18, 2013)

Are you sure someone didnt just doctor the spec list for the 1100D? Because thats pretty much what this seems like but with the 18MP sensor and a 3" rear screen.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2013)

Yet another (rumored) Canon product that folks here at CR (myself included) don't think anyone needs! 

In an odd sort of way this reminds me of the situation with the 24-70 f/4 lens - my initial reactions were ... WTF! what's the point here?


----------



## Bigjezza (Mar 18, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> I hate to break it to y'all, but that's not a camera.
> 
> It's a mechanical black poodle.
> 
> ...




That's what I was about to post... that description fits my 7D though haha


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 18, 2013)

sleepnever said:


> I think Canon dilutes thier lineup with too many of the same cameras. Why would a consumer buy this vs the T4i for the same price? What's different about this and the T4i (maybe I missed that)?


You'd be surprised with how many people make a buying decision based on size alone. I'm thinking that since Canon did not make such an impact on the market, with their mirror less cameras, they might be trying something different ... who knows, it might click.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 18, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Yet another (rumored) Canon product that folks here at CR (myself included) don't think anyone needs!


Well, outside our CR bubble, I suppose not everyone thinks like us CR folk ;D


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Mar 18, 2013)

I think Canon should make a camera that's pretty much the same as the 650D, as I think it wou-- OH LOOK. 
Such a pointless camera.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 18, 2013)

LP-12 battery ? Same as EOS-M 

Mirrorless maybe ?


----------



## melbournite (Mar 18, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> sleepnever said:
> 
> 
> > I think Canon dilutes thier lineup with too many of the same cameras. Why would a consumer buy this vs the T4i for the same price? What's different about this and the T4i (maybe I missed that)?
> ...



You know, this goes against the flow here but I'm more interested in this camera than the eos M. 

Just to clarify, I own the 5DII, 5DIII and up till recently the 7D. I also own a Lumix LX3 as a pocket camera. Professional gigs aside, I've stopped using the LX3 for social and personal events in favour of my 5DIII with the 40mm pancake. I would be interested in making this setup even more compact with a smaller body. It interests me more than the eos M and I love the quality and size of the pancake. 

I guess I won't know how small this is till I feel it in my hands but if it does come to fruition and it's to my liking, I might wait till the price cools and be up for it?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 18, 2013)

melbournite said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > sleepnever said:
> ...


+1


----------



## Nishi Drew (Mar 18, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> melbournite said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



Yes the lineup is definitely more parts water than juicy goodness but as for consumer logic I can see there being a market for something like this, traditionally any DSLR is assumed to take better photos, but DSLRs look and are probably too complicated to operate, while the easier-to-use cameras don't appeal to the certain person that's all about "a good camera for good quality". You make a DSLR that's easy to use (Like the Fuji super zooms that are SLR sized and look like one) and maybe you can get those people too.... and I think that's ridiculous flawed logic, but money it could make.
Though really, just another pathetic way to get rid of those 18mp sensors


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 18, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> Though really, just another pathetic way to get rid of those 18mp sensors


I don't think it is pathetic ... at the end of the day it is business, as long as a business houses can make money selling their existing ware they will ... that's just good business practice ... apart from being able to produce good cameras, lenses etc for its customers, Canon also has a responsibility to its shareholders to make money and distribute dividends etc ... besides it is not like Canon is forcing anyone to buy that camera ... if the consumer does not like it he/she is free to buy something else from another manufacturer. Personally, if "100D" does come to life, there could a good market for it ... most women and lots of men do not have big hands or the desire to grip/carry big DSLR's but if they can get DSLR quality images, faster (than the EOS-M) AF speed in a much smaller package in 100D, I think they will buy it.


----------



## fman (Mar 18, 2013)

BrandonKing96 said:


> Such a pointless camera.



Yes, indeed. Canon marketing is getting very creative (or desperate?) to come up yet another camera that has the same old (tech) 18MP sensor used so many times in many different APS-C bodies (and it cannot compete anymore with latest micro 4/3 sensors).

Instead they should rather focus on enhancing their APS-C sensor so that it at least comes close enough to the latest micro 4/3 cameras (with superior picture quality compared to Canon APS-C) that not only have small bodies but many excellent and small/light lens to choose from.


----------



## filo64 (Mar 18, 2013)

Just like Melbournite, I am looking for something more compact than my 5D III with 40mm STM without too big of a compromise in the image quality department. And yes, Dylan777, FF would be nice, but rx1-like without a viewfinder? I think I want a viewfinder. And viewfinder plus FF? If Canon can make that one small.... Ah well, you can always dream.


----------



## Woody (Mar 18, 2013)

If the 100D face detect and contrast AF is anywhere as fast as the OMD, I don't mind getting one to pair with the 35 f/2 IS.


----------



## Pixelsign (Mar 18, 2013)

wow, this camera must be very old. i mean, the 350D appeared 10 years ago ;D . very confusing naming... why not 1200D?


----------



## barracuda (Mar 18, 2013)

melbournite said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > sleepnever said:
> ...



Count me as someone else going against the flow here. I also own the 5D2 and 5D3 and coincidentally, I too have sold my 7D (and am eagerly awaiting the 7D2!).

I'm an ultra runner (marathons, 50k's, and am working on my first 50 miler) and often bring along a camera during my training runs. I've used the Powershot S95 and G12 because of their smaller sizes, but have recently brought along a T4i for better image quality. As you can imagine, size matters when trail running for hours at a time, so if Canon releases a smaller DSLR with comparable image quality, I'd get it in an instant. Every little bit helps.

It's funny that people pooh-pooh cameras based on specs alone. The thinking is that if a camera appears compromised, then it is "pointless", as one person commented. One size does not fit all, both literally and figuratively...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 18, 2013)

barracuda said:


> I'm an ultra runner (marathons, 50k's, and am working on my first 50 miler) and often bring along a camera during my training runs. I've used the Powershot S95 and G12 because of their smaller sizes, but have recently brought along a T4i for better image quality. As you can imagine, size matters when trail running for hours at a time, so if Canon releases a smaller DSLR with comparable image quality, I'd get it in an instant. Every little bit helps.
> 
> It's funny that people pooh-pooh cameras based on specs alone. The thinking is that if a camera appears compromised, then it is "pointless", as one person commented. One size does not fit all, both literally and figuratively...


Well said ... I totally agree.


----------



## CanNotYet (Mar 18, 2013)

Actually, I think this camera sounds great! 13.1 ounces is nothing!
If you do NOT own any of the 18 MP cameras previously, this will be on the short list.
It is basically a smaller 650D without flipscreen (which I hate anyway).
If they throw in a thumbwheel and some other ergonomic bonuses, maybe WiFi and GPS, this could still be a kickass camera. pair it with a small prime like the 40/2.8 and it will be the same weight as a G1X (and roughly the same size too!)

You guys should stop bashing it, this thing will SELL! (when price drops to 600$, so G1X and this cost the same)


----------



## Stuart (Mar 18, 2013)

Place holder specs :-
Focus Range	9.8′ – infinity - that's got to be a mistake 9.8 feet? They must mean inches "


----------



## melbournite (Mar 18, 2013)

barracuda said:


> Count me as someone else going against the flow here. I also own the 5D2 and 5D3 and coincidentally, I too have sold my 7D (and am eagerly awaiting the 7D2!).



lol, I too am waiting for the 7D2.


----------



## M.ST (Mar 18, 2013)

There are a lot of rumored names for the new small EOS bodys.

A guy from Canon told me today, that the name "EOS B" is possible.

It sound realistic to me, because the small EOS bodys are a new product line. But we will see at the 22th.

But I want a camera between the 5D Mark III and 1D X, a new EF 80-400 IS L, a 12-24 2.8 L oder a 16-35 2.8 III, a 7D Mark II with CF card slot to replace the TC´s, a better build EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS and a lot more. And the EF 17-40 L from 2003 needs a replacement too.


----------



## akiskev (Mar 18, 2013)

650d: 133 x 100 x 79 mm
100d: 117 x 91 x 69 mm

ok it is smaller we get it!


----------



## Sith Zombie (Mar 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> An 18 MP APS-C sensor. I'm shocked, really shocked. I didn't even know Canon _had_ an 18 MP APS-C sensor, and yet here it is. Wow. Just...wow.
> 
> :



Welcome to the future! I'm excited too, I love the way Canon put entirely new sensors into each and everyone of their bodies, thats why I own the 7D, 60D, Eos M and a couple of rebels. The results are different for each camera I use!


----------



## Isurus (Mar 18, 2013)

If I wanted a body this small I'd invest in a m4/3 mirrorless system instead. When I think of wanting something more compact, I think of both the body AND the lenses. A super small body will be really unbalanced when you add larger lenses to it, even EF-S. Pricing is kind of out there too. Meh.


----------



## Vivid Color (Mar 18, 2013)

akiskev said:


> 650d: 133 x 100 x 79 mm
> 100d: 117 x 91 x 69 mm
> 
> ok it is smaller we get it!



For additional comparison purposes, here's the size of Canon's T1i (500D): 128.8 x 97.5 x 61.9mm
And the XT (350D): 126.5 x 94.2 x 64mm 
All data are from the Canon website.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 18, 2013)

Isurus said:


> If I wanted a body this small I'd invest in a m4/3 mirrorless system instead. When I think of wanting something more compact, I think of both the body AND the lenses. A super small body will be really unbalanced when you add larger lenses to it, even EF-S. *Pricing is kind of out there too*. Meh.



I think it makes more sense when you consider it agenst m43, you want a body with an SLR form factor and an EVF and your paying a significant amount more than this.

It also of course offers an option to existing EF/EF-S lens users looking for a smaller second camera with the same mount. 

We don't of course know what kind of lens support Canon might offer in the future, maybe a powered zoom or a wider pancake?


----------



## facedodge (Mar 18, 2013)

M.ST said:


> There are a lot of rumored names for the new small EOS bodys.
> 
> A guy from Canon told me today, that the name "EOS B" is possible.
> 
> ...



What do you do that you need 3 wide angle zooms with mostly overlapping focal lengths?


----------



## skfla (Mar 18, 2013)

If canon made a 30mm pancake, with the crop factor the 40mm is nice but not really that useful for me, then I might be interested whenever the price on this camera drops SIGNIFICANTLY.

But to me, this is further proof that someone in purchasing/manufacturing made a big goof a few years ago. When they were ordering the 18 mp sensors, someone put in one or two too many zeros. And BAM, they ended up with a 100 million of the things sitting in a warehouse somewhere. & ever since, they've been sitting around thinking* "...NOW what kind of camera can we make to unload a few more of these damn things??"*


----------



## brianboru (Mar 18, 2013)

My wife bought a T4i two weeks ago and is thrilled. A good part of that happiness is the touch screen which does a very nice job of creating a unified user interface for someone starting out. She commented that our 7D and 40D were intimidating in the past when she has tried to learn how to use them.

I see the rumored 100D being a nice addition to the entry market:

T4i - biggest with a pivot screen that is handy for video.
100D - smaller and lighter but still with fast focusing for photos.
M - really small at the loss of focus speed.
Obviously the three cameras have almost identical internals and that the difference is in the form. If the rumored 100D were available two weeks ago I think it might have won out over the T4i for my wife.

All of these cameras are answers to someone considering a micro4/3 camera but who likes the idea of getting into a lens-lineup that can grow with them in the future.


----------



## ssrdd (Mar 18, 2013)

Again same stupid 18mp sensor. W T F canon?


----------



## killswitch (Mar 18, 2013)

Just saw a post in CanonPriceWatch Facebook page where Best Buy accidentally uploaded links to so called rumored 18mp body that is supposed to be announced in a few days time. Don't know how accurate this is but CPW has a screenshot of the page and the name of the body is Canon "EOS-b"!  Typo?


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2013)

killswitch said:


> Just saw a post in CanonPriceWatch Facebook page where Best Buy accidentally uploaded links to so called rumored 18mp body that is supposed to be announced in a few days time. Don't know how accurate this is but CPW has a screenshot of the page and the name of the body is Canon "EOS-b"!  Typo?



EOS-B(ULL)!!!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 18, 2013)

Isurus said:


> If I wanted a body this small I'd invest in a m4/3 mirrorless system instead. When I think of wanting something more compact, I think of both the body AND the lenses. A super small body will be really unbalanced when you add larger lenses to it, even EF-S. Pricing is kind of out there too. Meh.


Yes one could invest in m4/3 mirrorless system but that'd mean buying new lenses too ... but with a smaller sized APS-C camera I can use my existing 40mm, 50mm & 85mm lenses ... add the new 24 or 28mm IS lenses to that and its a awesome combo in a small package, giving much better results than any m4/3 camera could. As a bonus one can add all of the existing EF-S & EF lenses without having to invest new system and lenses (not to mention getting used to the new system, whereas I am already familiar with the Canon cameras ... personally I see great potential for this product and if it can deliver what a 650D can, I'm buying it).


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 18, 2013)

If its Film rebel 2000 size and still an SLR, I see no reason to buy mirror-less.


----------



## tapanit (Mar 18, 2013)

"Lens Features: EF-S 18 – 55mm f/3.5 – 5.6 IS zoom lens"

"Lens Focal Length(s) 35mm equivalent 18 – 55mm (with included lens)"

If those are correct, it's a full-frame body.
Somehow I don't really think so, but if it were...


----------



## swrightgfx (Mar 18, 2013)

tapanit said:


> "Lens Features: *EF-S* 18 – 55mm f/3.5 – 5.6 IS zoom lens"
> 
> "Lens Focal Length(s) 35mm equivalent 18 – 55mm (with included lens)"
> 
> ...



EF-S not compatible with full frame. Definitely not full frame. That would be crazy.


----------



## yakapo (Mar 18, 2013)

Newbie here... I've got a T4i and I wouldn't mind having a smaller body. I like the Sony nex6 but it would be too much to replace my 30mm 1.4 and my speedlite. 

I guess the real question is, what am I losing by giving up my t4i for this?


----------



## ECRoyce (Mar 18, 2013)

To everyone pooh-poohing the reuse of the same/tweaked form sensor, what are you really complaining about? I only became aware of a new 'small Rebel' a couple weeks ago, and wasn't anticipating anything earth shattering.

Were you honestly THAT excited over a small form camera, that you expected a new sensor, and more importantly... were you going to buy it until you saw it was only 18MP? At what point would you have been satisfied (brand new 14MP/16/20/24MP), and if once satisfied with the specs, would you be buying it? If the last answer is ultimately no, which I suspect to be the case for most, then why do you care?

In my opinion, this is a great use of using 'hand-me-down' technology in a business sense, extending the earning power of already existing technology, and is something I expected. Remember this effectively replaces the 12MP sensor of the T3/1100D. If you already have proven successful technology, you are foolish to not exploit every last drop out of it.

The timing of this 'surprise' new body is also good. Ahead of them introducing long anticipated advanced-entry and other niche level bodies (700D/70D/7D2), why is this a bad thing? It means in all likelihood, we are going to see at least 1, maybe 2 if we're lucky, new sensor(s) being introduced to replace what would appear to be a now vacant position in the technology battle. 

Also, since everyone knows simply throwing megapixels alone doesn't accomplish much, please ask yourself what would have really made you happy. Maybe we should all wait a couple more days for more news and announcements, and if not then maybe in a month or two.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 18, 2013)

swrightgfx said:


> tapanit said:
> 
> 
> > "Lens Features: *EF-S* 18 – 55mm f/3.5 – 5.6 IS zoom lens"
> ...



The mount is the same for EF and EF-S..... the problem is mirror clearance on the existing EF bodies. The larger mirror required for FF takes more space to swing up than the APS-C sized mirror. If you think outside the box and change the geometry somehow... or even a split mirror!!!... you could overcome that obstacle and fit a FF sensor in. Yes, when using an EF-S lens you would have to crop it to the central 60 percent or so of the image, but it could be done.

SOME EF-S lenses can be used on FF bodies, such as the Sigma 10-20 on a 5D2. It's not an impossible thing, but I doubt Canon is ready for FF compact cameras yet.


----------



## Sjekster (Mar 18, 2013)

> SOME EF-S lenses can be used on FF bodies, such as the Sigma 10-20 on a 5D2. It's not an impossible thing, but I doubt Canon is ready for FF compact cameras yet.


As far as I know, Sigma doesn't make EF-S lenses, only canon does. Sure, you'd have problem with heavy vignetting etc on 3rd party lenses made specifically for crop lenses, but they can all be physically used on full frame cameras.


----------



## rs (Mar 18, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> The mount is the same for EF and EF-S..... the problem is mirror clearance on the existing EF bodies. The larger mirror required for FF takes more space to swing up than the APS-C sized mirror. If you think outside the box and change the geometry somehow... or even a split mirror!!!... you could overcome that obstacle and fit a FF sensor in. Yes, when using an EF-S lens you would have to crop it to the central 60 percent or so of the image, but it could be done.
> 
> SOME EF-S lenses can be used on FF bodies, such as the Sigma 10-20 on a 5D2. It's not an impossible thing, but I doubt Canon is ready for FF compact cameras yet.


Canon EF-S lenses have an extra rubber part that pokes out of the rear of the lens, preventing them from mounting on EF mount bodies. Only cameras with an EF-S mount (crop sensor cameras from the 300D onwards) have the cut out to allow such lenses to physically mount.

Some people have removed it from the 10-22 to use it at longer focal lengths on APS-H bodies: http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157604422834954/

I'm not aware of anyone other than Canon that makes EF-S mount lenses, and such third party crop lenses _might_ have clearance for a full frame mirror, even if the image circle is too small.


----------



## Portos (Mar 18, 2013)

Bestby still has this EOS-B camera in the system:


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 18, 2013)

Sjekster said:


> > SOME EF-S lenses can be used on FF bodies, such as the Sigma 10-20 on a 5D2. It's not an impossible thing, but I doubt Canon is ready for FF compact cameras yet.
> 
> 
> As far as I know, Sigma doesn't make EF-S lenses, only canon does. Sure, you'd have problem with heavy vignetting etc on 3rd party lenses made specifically for crop lenses, but they can all be physically used on full frame cameras.



That's nitpicking....

Only Canon makes EF and EF-S lenses.
Only Sigma makes DG and DC lenses
Only Tamron makes D and DI lenses

Perhaps I should have said "EF-S compatable"


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 18, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> barracuda said:
> 
> 
> > I'm an ultra runner (marathons, 50k's, and am working on my first 50 miler) and often bring along a camera during my training runs. I've used the Powershot S95 and G12 because of their smaller sizes, but have recently brought along a T4i for better image quality. As you can imagine, size matters when trail running for hours at a time, so if Canon releases a smaller DSLR with comparable image quality, I'd get it in an instant. Every little bit helps.
> ...



yeah sort of IF it was reasonably priced....
but I've not seen and pics of it has anyone got any so we can see the physical size?
based on the weight its not a big saving vs a rebel
however the T3i is a bargain now where as this has a big premium over the top

at this end of the market cost is a much bigger factor than say the 5Dmk3 and look at the carry on and snivelling THAT caused and for that matter still causes to some extent.

This new mini-EOS is some 25 to 30% more than a T3i with an even bigger gap if you consider what a refurb T3i can be had for yet offers zero performance over the older rebel other than it's smaller size which based on weight is not much of a saving.

personally i quite like my EOS-M if i want something small its 22mm lens is great hell even the 18-55 kit lens leaves the EF-S 18-55 in its dust (i know thats not much of an achievement) and i've just started playing around with it and the samyang 8mm fish eye which is quite a cool little combo, oh and the magic lantern alpha have been running great on it. focus peaking, intervalometer improved bracketing soooo many great features. Magic lantern saves the EOS-M for sure. Its AF is still crappy slow with the shutter button but in all honestly the touch to shoot function is fast enough for most stuff and its automatic face tracking works suprisingly well and improves this speed too.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> An 18 MP APS-C sensor. I'm shocked, really shocked. I didn't even know Canon _had_ an 18 MP APS-C sensor, and yet here it is. Wow. Just...wow.
> 
> :



expected no new line sensor is ready now (we can only hope we don't also say that late 2013 or 2014 though too  ) and they want to milk this line and this the model to do it


----------



## EchoLocation (Mar 19, 2013)

if this was ff with the 5DIII AF i'd preorder for 2500 bucks. As it is, i have zero interest at all unless it is around 300 dollars.
Why does small have to mean lame specs?


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 19, 2013)

ECRoyce said:


> To everyone pooh-poohing the reuse of the same/tweaked form sensor, what are you really complaining about? I only became aware of a new 'small Rebel' a couple weeks ago, and wasn't anticipating anything earth shattering.
> 
> Were you honestly THAT excited over a small form camera, that you expected a new sensor, and more importantly... were you going to buy it until you saw it was only 18MP? At what point would you have been satisfied (brand new 14MP/16/20/24MP), and if once satisfied with the specs, would you be buying it? If the last answer is ultimately no, which I suspect to be the case for most, then why do you care?
> 
> ...


while i dont disagree with any of that you must have missed the price...
???


----------



## CanoSony (Mar 19, 2013)

yakapo said:


> Newbie here... I've got a T4i and I wouldn't mind having a smaller body. I like the Sony nex6 but it would be too much to replace my 30mm 1.4 and my speedlite.
> 
> I guess the real question is, what am I losing by giving up my t4i for this?



The NEX system has a fantastic Sigma 30mm f2.8 for about $150 that is really highly rated. Also the system has several electronic adapters for about $210 so you wont have to get rid of your canon lenses. I have a NEX 5R and it is my main take along camera. You wont be losing anything, you gain 10fps, contrast and phase detect AF, lighter smaller body and electronic viewfinder. Look also into the NEX 7 if you want excellent controls and magnesium body.


----------



## Malte_P (Mar 19, 2013)

CanoSony said:


> yakapo said:
> 
> 
> > Newbie here... I've got a T4i and I wouldn't mind having a smaller body. I like the Sony nex6 but it would be too much to replace my 30mm 1.4 and my speedlite.
> ...



great first post fanboy. 

NEX... urgs. 
i sure give up the great canon lenses for the sony system. lol


----------



## CanoSony (Mar 19, 2013)

Malte_P said:


> CanoSony said:
> 
> 
> > yakapo said:
> ...



Hardly.

I have 4 canon dslr bodies and a set of L lenses to go with them. The NEX system has Zeiss lenses just for their system which are excellent in IQ. The 16MP sensor in the nex 6 is excellent, AND you get AF all the time.

Canon is way behind Nikon and Sony as far as IQ and innovative products.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 19, 2013)

CanoSony said:


> I have 4 canon dslr bodies and a set of L lenses to go with them. The NEX system has Zeiss lenses just for their system which are excellent in IQ. The 16MP sensor in the nex 6 is excellent, AND you get AF all the time.
> 
> *Canon is way behind Nikon and Sony as far as IQ* and innovative products.



Are you sure you got that right ... You mean you have 4 DSLR canon bodies and L lenses and they have poor IQ as compared to Nikons and Sony? 

Troll post if ever I saw one!


----------



## EchoLocation (Mar 19, 2013)

J.R. said:


> CanoSony said:
> 
> 
> > I have 4 canon dslr bodies and a set of L lenses to go with them. The NEX system has Zeiss lenses just for their system which are excellent in IQ. The 16MP sensor in the nex 6 is excellent, AND you get AF all the time.
> ...


In terms of IQ, I don't think there is much difference among the top tier DSLR gear, but in terms of the entry level cameras, I think Canon is definitely getting a little long in the tooth, especially when comparing the 18mp APS-C Canon sensor with other entry level DSLR's. This should hopefully change this year when Canon refreshes the 60D and 7D.
In terms of innovative, outside of lenses, i'd be curious which Canon bodies you'd describe as innovative...?
the EOS-M is just another APS-C mirrorless, nothing too crazy compared to anything else on the market, although a nice option for people with tons of Canon glass. I haven't heard anyone say it has brought anything new or exciting to the mirrorless market.
The 5DIII is just more or less a refreshed D700 with double the MP's.... which is awesome, but not exactly innovative....
In terms of innovative in DSLR world i'd say the only ones I can think of are the A99(which I would never buy) and the D800E(also not interested.) 
In terms of small form factor, I think the most innovative cameras are the NEX series and the RX1/RX100, along with the Fujis. 
I'm sure i'm missing a few from other brands, but at least over the last 4 years, Canon has been anything but innovative in terms of bodies.
CanoSony, it's a tough crowd here sometimes if you're not an ultra Canon fanboy 24/7,
Welcome to the forum, it' always good to see new opinions around here.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 19, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> The 5DIII is just more or less a refreshed D700 with double the MP's.... which is awesome, but not exactly innovative....



Yawn. Trolling troll is trollish.

And completely overlooks the 1Dx, the Great Whites, the TS-Es, the 24-70 II and 70-200 II, the MP-E 65....

Look. Nikon makes some awesome camera gear. Yea verily, indubitably so. Why can't all y'all accept that without having to tear down the competition, who also makes some awesome camera gear?

Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. And where the one trumps the other this year, their places will as likely as not reverse next year. The wise photographer either picks the one whose _gestalt_ is a better fit for her needs, or picks the one that has something _today_ that tips the scales -- and then doesn't waste any more brain cycles on the matter, unless and until _the photographer's_ needs change.

Even then, should the photographer's needs change in a way that merits consideration of changing brands (in either direction), chances are excellent that a different format (typically medium format, though sometimes M43) altogether will be an even better fit than the competition.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## EchoLocation (Mar 19, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > The 5DIII is just more or less a refreshed D700 with double the MP's.... which is awesome, but not exactly innovative....
> ...


How is this trolling? 
first of all, I did mention that Canon has innovative lenses.
second of all, I did mention that "among top tier DSLR gear there isn't much difference", this was meant to say that the 1DX and D4 are fairly equal, and anyone would be hard pressed to say one is significantly better than the other. 
Third, 24-70II is great, but its 600 dollars more than I paid for my Nikon 24-70, and i've never heard anyone say they want to trade the Nikon for the Canon(nor have I heard vice versa.) I think they're both great. 
fourth, saying the 5DIII is an updated D700 with double the MP's isn't a bad thing. The 5DIII is the camera most Nikon fans were hoping to replace the D700. It's a great camera, and I seriously considered buying it, but ultimately it was just a little too expensive for my needs, especially along with the Canon 24-70 II. 
You can say all the great things you want about the 5DIII, but it's pretty rare anyone calls it innovative, and that doesn't make it a bad DSLR.
Is it bad that the RX1 with interchangeable lenses is my dream camera? Whichever company makes this for a reasonable price(ie comparable to 5DIIIish) will instantly attract me as a huge fanboy. I'm not a Nikon Troll, Sony Troll, anything, i'm just a camera fan who happens to own both Canon and Nikon DSLR's and is very tempted to buy an RX1. 
I'm not tempted to buy this camera at all. But I would have been if it was FF with similar to 5DIII specs for 3000 bucks, which would definitely have been innovative. This camera just sounds like an upgraded XTi. It's good if you don't have a DSLR or just like new toys... but I wouldn't buy this when I already own a 550D.


----------



## CanoSony (Mar 19, 2013)

J.R. said:


> CanoSony said:
> 
> 
> > I have 4 canon dslr bodies and a set of L lenses to go with them. The NEX system has Zeiss lenses just for their system which are excellent in IQ. The 16MP sensor in the nex 6 is excellent, AND you get AF all the time.
> ...



Yeah Im sure I have it right. I have 5d, 7d, 5d2 and 1dsm
Nikon d800 blows away canon in terms of iq and Sony has been much better at new products and innovations.

Ive been with canon for a decade now and a cps member also. Just very disappointed in their cameras lately. I will not buy Nikon because d800 is too big for my hands.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 19, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> How is this trolling?



Whenever you mention some negative fact about Canon that is so obvious and objective that it can't be disputed, then expect to be called a troll. If you even articulate your opinion in a clear and rational way, then it's all the worse.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 19, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> You can say all the great things you want about the 5DIII, but it's pretty rare anyone calls it innovative, and that doesn't make it a bad DSLR.



Insisting that the 5DIII isn't innovative is most certainly trolling.

At the time of its introduction, it had the best autofocus system of any camera by any manufacturer, period. It's only since been surpassed by the 1Dx.

At the time of its introduction, it had the best high ISO performance of any camera by any manufacturer, period. That, too, has only since been surpassed by the 1Dx.

I don't think there's any other 135-format SLR with a shutter actuation as quiet as the 5DIII when in silent mode.

And it remains, to this day, the unquestioned leader for an all-around can-do-anything camera. Sure, it's not the best action camera, but it's better than the previous round of action cameras. It's the best photojournalism / wedding / event camera, no doubt. It's not the best landscape or studio camera, but it's still better than the previous round of landscape and studio cameras in that format -- and, besides, landscape and studio are much better served by medium format than 135 format. And so on.

Claiming that the camera that broke new ground in autofocus and ISO performance and which represents the best-balanced camera ever made isn't innovative?

Yeah, that's a troll.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 19, 2013)

CanoSony said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > CanoSony said:
> ...



May I ask, has the canon system ever held back your creativity? If so, in what area's? I'd be hard pressed to find something I can solidly say that canon equipment has held me back.


----------



## EchoLocation (Mar 19, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > You can say all the great things you want about the 5DIII, but it's pretty rare anyone calls it innovative, and that doesn't make it a bad DSLR.
> ...


OK, at the time of it's introduction the D800 had already been announced. The D800 was announced Feb 7th, 2012, the 5DIII March 2nd. The 1DX was announced on Oct 18, 2011 and released in March. So, it was never actually surpassed by the 1DX, it never was as good. I'm not slamming the 5DIII AF, as it is awesome, i'm just showing that your facts aren't facts at all. Additionally, I have never heard anyone say that the 5DIII has the best AF of any camera on the market. The 1DX and D4 should be better(i haven't used them outside of a showroom.)
Additionally, The 5DIII has worse high ISO performance than the D800 according to DXOmark. It's ISO rating is 2293 while the D800 is 2853. I'm not a DXO mark fan, but I don't know where else to turn for objective high ISO numbers. 
Nothing you stated is a fact.


----------



## CanoSony (Mar 19, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> CanoSony said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Color depth and dynamic range are much greater on the Nikon and Sony cameras. I cannot push my RAW files as much as i want.

Anyone can shoot any camera and get similar results. Just some cameras do it better.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 19, 2013)

CanoSony said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > CanoSony said:
> ...



Could you demonstrate where the DR of a canon camera has limited you in real world shooting?


----------



## CanoSony (Mar 19, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> CanoSony said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Any shooting situations where blown highlights and clipped shadows appear, Nikon and Sony handle better at brining that back in line.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 19, 2013)

CanoSony said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Could you demonstrate where the DR of a canon camera has limited you in real world shooting?
> ...



Definition of DEMONSTRATE

transitive verb
1
: to show clearly <demonstrate a willingness to cooperate>
2
a : to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence
b : to illustrate and explain especially with many examples <demonstrate a procedure> *Let's use this one.*


Please show us some photos where the DR of a canon camera limited your creativity in real world shooting.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 19, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > You can say all the great things you want about the 5DIII, but it's pretty rare anyone calls it innovative, and that doesn't make it a bad DSLR.
> ...



Perhaps you two have a different idea of what innovative means?

Myself, I would not say that the 5D3 is innovative, but I would say that it has several good solid improvements over the 5D2. The 5D2 was considered by many to be the best all-round camera, then the 5D3 came out and now it holds that distinction. There is nothing about it that is new, or innovative, or revolutionary.... just a lot of growth from the models that have gone before..... no new technology, no new features, just incremental growth.


----------



## CanoSony (Mar 19, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> CanoSony said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Photos indoors beside windows or under shade with a single shot. Nothing will limit creativity but using the better tool for the job will always be the choice. Canon falls behind in dynamic range.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 19, 2013)

CanoSony said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > CanoSony said:
> ...



Big talk and no photos = Worthless opinion.


----------



## CanoSony (Mar 19, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> CanoSony said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Its fun to see you so worked up when theres plenty of evidence of DR superiority and IQ of Nikon Sony. Sorry I dont spend all day on my computer. Im on my phone.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 19, 2013)

CanoSony said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > CanoSony said:
> ...



Nah, Just trolling the troll. DR is irrelevant if you don't take pictures.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2013)

Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

*There is a horse named Dynamic Range. It is dead. Please stop beating the dead horse.*


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 19, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> OK, at the time of it's introduction the D800 had already been announced. The D800 was announced Feb 7th, 2012, the 5DIII March 2nd. The 1DX was announced on Oct 18, 2011 and released in March. So, it was never actually surpassed by the 1DX, it never was as good. I'm not slamming the 5DIII AF, as it is awesome, i'm just showing that your facts aren't facts at all.



Physician, kettle, mote, _etc._

I and thousands others had thousands of exposures on our 5DIIIs long before you could even officially pre-order a 1Dx. And the D800 is many wonderful things, but it only surpasses the 5DIII in megapickle count and dynamic range -- its autofocus is far shy of the 5DIII's -- as are almost all of its other features. That you should suggest it's got better autofocus than the 5DIII...and then start whipping the dead dynamic range horse and claiming the D800 has better high ISO performance....

...yeah. Troll.

Even if you're not intentionally trolling, which I rather doubt by now, you're still trolling.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## EchoLocation (Mar 20, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > OK, at the time of it's introduction the D800 had already been announced. The D800 was announced Feb 7th, 2012, the 5DIII March 2nd. The 1DX was announced on Oct 18, 2011 and released in March. So, it was never actually surpassed by the 1DX, it never was as good. I'm not slamming the 5DIII AF, as it is awesome, i'm just showing that your facts aren't facts at all.
> ...


Neuro, are you ready to stop standing on the sidelines while people argue against my FACTS with their OPINIONS. I have been killed on this board for using my opinion to make arguments many times. I presented factual numbers from DXOMARK. I explained that I don't think they are the best numbers, but they are at least numbers by a lab. What have you used for your argument, 100% opinion. 
The D800 was measured as having better high ISO performance than the 5DIII. 
I'm not saying it's a better camera, i'm simply saying that YOU ARE USING OPINION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FACTS TO SHOW THAT THE 5DIII has better HIGH ISO performance?
Are you even reading my posts? I never said the D800 has better AF. I said the 1DX has better AF and that it was announced before the 5DIII. Whether it was available or not at the time, there was never any doubt in my mind that the AF of the 1DX would be superior. 
You guys just spent a page killing our newcomer for not agreeing with you, all the while you have ignored that I presented numbers showing the D800 has better high ISO performance. I never mentioned DR in any earlier posts as I agree it is has been overblown(pardon the pun), however I don't discount it's importance. It's obviously better to have good DR than not to.
How did you rebuke the high ISO dxomark scores? by yeling, "Troll" "Troll" "troll"
TrumpetPower, please show me numbers, not opinions, but factual evidence from anywhere showing that the 5DIII is better at high ISO? I'm curious to see why you are so positive that the 5DIII is better. 

As I said in earlier posts, I don't really care all that much for DXOMark, but I don't know where else to turn for lab measured numbers on cameras. 
Also, people on this board can bash DXOmark scores all they want, but when Admin posted this thread with false 1DX scores, people were thrilled to gloat about the superior scores of the 1DX.... until they found out the numbers were false, when they went back to hating DXO. lol! http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10075.0
You can disagree with me all you want, it's fine. But please don't call me a troll when i'm at least trying to give evidence. All you have given us is your opinion.
Once again, please show me where any 3rd party has definitively said the 5DIII has better high ISO.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 20, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > EchoLocation said:
> ...


What are you trying to achieve?


----------



## EchoLocation (Mar 20, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > TrumpetPower! said:
> ...


To show that my opinions based on facts are being lambasted by simple opinions with no facts?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> Neuro, are you ready to stop standing on the sidelines



Like I said, the horse is dead. Dead, and beaten so extensively no one can tell where the horse ends and the dirt begins. You won't convince anyone, nor will I, and we won't be convinced. Where does that leave us? Well...I don't know where it leaves you, but I've got better things to do than drag that poor, pathetic equine carcass from thread to thread for another useless beating. I ran my bat through the wood chipper.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 20, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> Once again, please show me where any 3rd party has definitively said the 5DIII has better high ISO.



<sigh />

Here's the very top Google hit:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml

To my eye, the Nikon ISO 3200 shot has about as much noise as the Canon ISO 25,600 shot. I wouldn't use ISO 6400 for serious stuff on the Nikon, but I don't think much about going to 12,800 on the Canon.

Yes, yes. The Nikon has more megapickles and thus more resolution and thus can resolve finer details. We know that. And we also know that the Nikon has more dynamic range, so you can better recover a badly underexposed image with a Nikon than with a Canon. We don't care. Those who do care, if they have any brains at all, have already bought a D800.

All that's at most only tangentially related to high ISO performance, which is the subject you're mysteriously pig-headedly tilting at windmills about...and, frankly, there the Canon blows the Nikon out of the water.

And, yes. The D800 is a wonderful camera, a great camera to consider if you're looking for something to bridge the gap between 135 and medium format, especially for studio and landscape and other low ISO work.

But we really don't need yet more Nikonistas telling us how, like, totally awesomes it is, thankyouverymuch. We know, we're happy for you, and we really don't care much beyond that.

It would be rude of us to keep boasting about the 5DIII's autofocus performance and high ISO performance and silent shutter and what-not over on a Nikon forum. I don't know if others do that; I don't visit Nikon forums. I hope they don't. But it's just as equally rude for Nikonistas to brag about the D800's megapickles and DR, and, frankly, we're generally sick of it over here in Canon land.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## CanoSony (Mar 20, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > EchoLocation said:
> ...



DR comparison 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 20, 2013)

CanoSony said:


> DR comparison
> 
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html



Sorry, Neuro, but you're worng on this one. Dead worng.

The horse is dead, yes, but not beaten into the dust. Far from it. It's very much intact, and it wants braaaaaiiiiiiinnnnnnssssss.

Incidentally, it's fascinating how many times I see people link to Fred's page without also noting his conclusion:



> As you can see from my samples, I mostly stuck with the Canon Mark III on this trip. Mainly because of the difficulty I faced with Nikon D800's poor LCD Live View performance in low light. For my photography needs, this was the Achilles' heel of an otherwise superb camera. But, if you don't rely on live view, then this will never be an issue for you. Aside from that, my only other desire would be for Nikon to release an ultra wide-angle tilt and shift lens and upgrade the current PC-E lenses so that the shift and tilt could be rotated independently.



And that, incidentally, perfectly matches up with why most people who prefer Canon to Nikon do so. Sure, the Nikon camera has a marginally better _sensor_ that can be used as a not-miserable digital fill flash or to recover badly underexposed pictures. But the Canon is a better _camera_ and the lenses are far superior.

If all you care about is the sensor, then the Nikon's for you. But if the sensor is just one small piece of the puzzle, you'll find that the Canon sensor is just fine, thankyouverymuch, and much better in low light, askshually, and everything not related to the sensor is better with the Canon.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 20, 2013)

CanoSony said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Shooter said:
> ...



How's those photos coming along?


----------



## CanoSony (Mar 20, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> CanoSony said:
> 
> 
> > EchoLocation said:
> ...



I give an example of how DR is used and this is all you can come up with.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 20, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > OK, at the time of it's introduction the D800 had already been announced. The D800 was announced Feb 7th, 2012, the 5DIII March 2nd. The 1DX was announced on Oct 18, 2011 and released in March. So, it was never actually surpassed by the 1DX, it never was as good. I'm not slamming the 5DIII AF, as it is awesome, i'm just showing that your facts aren't facts at all.
> ...


+1


----------



## J.R. (Mar 20, 2013)

J.R. said:


> CanoSony said:
> 
> 
> > I have 4 canon dslr bodies and a set of L lenses to go with them. The NEX system has Zeiss lenses just for their system which are excellent in IQ. The 16MP sensor in the nex 6 is excellent, AND you get AF all the time.
> ...



Damn! My bad on commenting on a troll post and starting the dreaded DR discussion again :-[


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 20, 2013)

CanoSony said:


> I give an example of how DR is used and this is all you can come up with.



You have yet to demonstrate to us where the DR of a canon camera has limited you in real world shooting.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 20, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> CanoSony said:
> 
> 
> > I give an example of how DR is used and this is all you can come up with.
> ...



Excuse me, the photos attached to that article are from real-world scenarios or from a unicorn photo shoot in Narnia?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 20, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > CanoSony said:
> ...


No not as far fetched as a "unicorn photo shoot in Narnia", however, (in the fredmiranda weblink provided), he says: "I interpolated the 22MP file to 36MP. I believe this is a fair comparison because both files will be printed at the same paper size" ... how the hell can a interpolated file be a "fair comparison" to the native file from the full resolution of a camera ... I guess one is entitled to "*think* it is fair" if one is smoking some exotic stuff grown in Narnia from the unicorn's a55 ;D


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 20, 2013)

What the F is the difference supposed to be between this and the t5i? Am i missing something?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 20, 2013)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> Am i missing something?


Yes!


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 20, 2013)

I see there's been a real punch up going on an I've missed nearly all of it ! What was a fight over DR ( or DH as Neuro would say ) going on under '100D specs appear ' ? 

I'm still totally baffled by the war of words that is fought over this. The Canon sensor is more than capable of handling all but an extreme EV range. As some one pointed out on another thread, if the EV range is going to exceed 11 stops it tends to be way over 11 ( or 14 ) stops.

There are two issues here: one is the ability of the sensor to record high and low light in one exposure, the other is the data's ability to be recovered in PP.

The first picture I've attached is shot by my daughter with Canon's budget SLR - the 1100D. It's shot in jpeg, the sun is strong, the rider has snowy white breeches on - ( these riding girls just love their snowy white breeches and my little dog can put a muddy paw print pattern all over them before the dismounted girl can finish the sentence "Aaarrgggg...." but I digress). So we have strong sun, white breeches and black boots, yet the cheapest of Canon SLR's has nicely sat the highlight and lowlight at either end of the response curve.

Now what's wrong with that ?

On to shadow recovery. At Building Panoramics we have _never /i] had a problem with this. The picture of Roche Abbey had a huge EV range as the sun was reflecting straight back off the white magnesium limestone. I attach a section of one of the RAW files, and as you can see the shadows are pretty black. Yet we pulled this back no problem in post - there is no noise, no banding - no issues. You can check this for yourselves if anyone so wishes on our website where Roche is on the super zoom.

I guess the Nikon / Sony sensors allow easier shadow recovery for people don't know how to post process, or don't have the powerful programs, but would you trade this for the high ISO capability ?

The whole Canon package - body, sensor, lenses - is very good. It's no wonder there are some green trolls about.

And lets refer to it as DH from now on ;D_


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 20, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> I attach a section of one of the RAW files, and as you can see the shadows are pretty black. Yet we pulled this back no problem in post - there is no noise, no banding - no issues.



The reason, of course, that you didn't have any trouble with the shadows is that -- wait for it! -- you let the shadows be shadows. Radical concept, I know, especially for the measurebators.

Those who constantly bitch about noisy shadows are generally trying to turn shadows into midtones -- and, sometimes, even brighter than midtones. Invariably, they're at least placing the lighter parts of the shadow detail at or above Zone V, and often stretching the hell out of the contrast to boot.

In other words, they're trying to use the camera's dynamic range as a fill flash, and often as a high-intensity selective spotlight to boot.

Thing is, even if the camera _could_ contort the image like that, it _still_ won't look right...the directionality of the shadows, the proportions, everything will look weird.

Now, if you _like_ that bizarre distortion of reality, sure, great, go for it, get your grove on, and Canon's not for you.

But anybody who generally likes to preserve at least the general impression of a continuous tone curve throughout the image that's consistent with that in the original will either let the shadows be shadows or will fix the light (or use a graduated neutral density filter or blend multiple exposures) -- and, any way you look at it, there isn't a camera on the market today that doesn't have more than ample dynamic range for us.

Besides. Our cameras already have way more dynamic range than our printers and even our displays, so what's the bother?

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Malte_P (Mar 20, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I attach a section of one of the RAW files, and as you can see the shadows are pretty black. Yet we pulled this back no problem in post - there is no noise, no banding - no issues.
> ...



so you say nikons higher DR turns all their images into strange looking HDR images....??

and we could be happy with a way lower DR.. if we accept just more shadows...is that what you say?

8)


----------



## krjc (Mar 20, 2013)

I bought a T4i, for my girlfriend and she loves it but says it is too big. So yes there is a market, I think it will be a success and I don't like mirrorless cameras so I find this is a fantastic move by Canon. Gee people complaining about too much choice, really don't get it.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 20, 2013)

krjc said:


> I bought a T4i, for my girlfriend and she loves it but says it is too big. So yes there is a market, I think it will be a success and I don't like mirrorless cameras so I find this is a fantastic move by Canon. Gee people complaining about too much choice, really don't get it.



I thought that's what the EOS-M was for. Or Nikon 1.


----------



## krjc (Mar 20, 2013)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> krjc said:
> 
> 
> > I bought a T4i, for my girlfriend and she loves it but says it is too big. So yes there is a market, I think it will be a success and I don't like mirrorless cameras so I find this is a fantastic move by Canon. Gee people complaining about too much choice, really don't get it.
> ...



We both prefer DSLR with optical viewfinder format & EF-S mount. AF faster on T4i which was important also. Mirrorless is not for every one.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 20, 2013)

Malte_P said:


> so you say nikons higher DR turns all their images into strange looking HDR images....??
> 
> and we could be happy with a way lower DR.. if we accept just more shadows...is that what you say?
> 
> 8)



<whoosh />

Let's try a car analogy.

Imagine we've got a group of people who hang out discussing a brand of cars well known for making reliable everyday commuters / family cars, and what they most care about is that the cars just work, and they don't get in their way. The types of features that get them excited are a better cruise control, better visibility, a simpler console, a smoother ride, that sort of thing.

Now imagine that there's a rival hotrod brand whose devotees care about nothing but speed.

Further imagine that all the cars in the "boring" brand have a top speed of 100 mph and handle beautifully at 85, but the hotrod brand's cars can do 120 mph, but they're squirrely as all get-out at 65 mph and the cupholders are all too shallow and so drinks spill really easily. Plus they don't have an hatchback model and none of them have removable or even fold-down seats.

Might you be able to understand why those discussing the "boring" brand really don't give a damn about that extra 20 mph at the top end of the speed range? When, ever, in the real world, outside of a racetrack or something else that's going to get you in real trouble, would it even occur to any sane person to drive that fast? And wouldn't any sane person prefer something that's nice and steady at normal freeway speeds anyway?

Look. You clearly care about that extra 20 mph. Whoopee, fantastic, great for you. So go get that hotrod. And enjoy it. But stop trying to convince the rest of us that we need it, when, really, truly, honestly, we couldn't care less. We'll never notice it missing, and we _will and do_ notice the lack of all sorts of other things that you clearly don't give a damn about (but that we really and truly honestly do).

Cheers,

b&


----------



## krjc (Mar 21, 2013)

I'm a Canon guy 100%! But more DR capability is always better if everything else is equal. 

The analogy of a car with more HP is a good one. Don't always need it, but when you do, you are extremely grateful to have it. Extra HP can save your life and more DR can save a photo.

I hope Canon improves DR someday, but until then I will happily use my Canon 5D3, it is a great Camera.


----------



## TeenTog (Mar 21, 2013)

On a completely different note-

Could this camera be a replacement for the T3?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2013)

krjc said:


> I'm a Canon guy 100%! But more DR capability is always better if everything else is equal.



But...everything else is NOT equal.


----------



## krjc (Mar 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> krjc said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a Canon guy 100%! But more DR capability is always better if everything else is equal.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2013)

krjc said:


> Bottom line Neuroa.., would you prefer a 5D3 with greater DR or not?



Of course. But not if I had to give up better AF, better ergonomics, compatibility with lenses like the MP-E 65, a tilt-shift with on-the-fly orientation changes, and a handholdable 600mm lens to get that increased DR. Life is about tradeoffs. You pick what's important and live with the rest. 

I do have to say that I don't generally find DR of my current cameras to be a problem for me. P


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 21, 2013)

krjc said:


> I'm a Canon guy 100%! But more DR capability is always better if everything else is equal.
> 
> The analogy of a car with more HP is a good one. Don't always need it, but when you do, you are extremely grateful to have it. Extra HP can save your life and more DR can save a photo.
> 
> I hope Canon improves DR someday, but until then I will happily use my Canon 5D3, it is a great Camera.



Actually, a car with too much power can easily be deadly if you don't know what you're doing with it. Plop your average, 50th percentile driver into a Formula 1 racer without some serious and intensive training, and I'd be surprised if the car survived a week. The driver probably would...those things can practically run head-first into a concrete wall at freeway speeds and the driver will probably walk away...but the car will be toast.

Plus, the average, 50th percentile driver is going to very, very soon miss the little niceties...like a radio, a place to put your bag lunch, and a turn signal....

Back to dynamic range...I would completely agree with you if Canon's dynamic range were inadequate, exactly the same as I'd agree with you about certain no-name off-brand electric "vehicles" that're really just golf carts with a different shell and have a top speed of 45 MPH. (I'm obviously excluding real electric vehicles like the Leaf, the Volt, and the Tesla.) Those things have inadequate speed and power and ought not be driven on a most roads and are illegal to drive on many.

But Canon's dynamic range is just fine, thankyouverymuch. Maybe not as much as some of the famous classic black-and-white films, but a lot more than color slides -- and most of the most iconic images from before the dawn of the digital age were made with color slide film.

As has been repeatedly asked and never answered: when has the lack of dynamic range of a Canon camera been a problem in real-world photography for you? When have you had a properly-exposed image that was ruined by the camera's narrow dynamic range?

Personally, I've yet to see such an example that wasn't more than simply a contrived snapshot. Closest I've come has been somebody who was doing photojournalism-type portraits in full noontime sun without any sort of light modifiers who was complaining that digital fill on the Canon was unable to make the images look like studio portraiture. Dude apparently hadn't heard of this novel invention called a "flash," and also didn't quite understand the concept of photojournalism....

b&


----------



## krjc (Mar 21, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> krjc said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a Canon guy 100%! But more DR capability is always better if everything else is equal.
> ...



Regarding your first comment, I will take my chances with more DR. lol
Regarding the second comment, Canon DR is adequate, but I want great, not adequate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with my Canon, getting great photos with it, but there are times more DR would be welcome. End of discussion for me.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 21, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Malte_P said:
> 
> 
> > so you say nikons higher DR turns all their images into strange looking HDR images....??
> ...



8) Best analogy ever. I completely agree, especially about other people telling me what I need.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 21, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Malte_P said:
> ...



When I went car shopping my criteria were can my bicycle fit in the basck without taking the wheels off, and can I carry two canoes on the roof.


but back to the main topic.... dynamic range.
I have had dynamic range problems in photography. Try taking a picture of a sparkling white waterfall and black rocks.... I couldn't cover the range at all with film, can get pretty close with a single shot now that I have digital, and no problem at all with HDR photography.

Yes, more range is nicer to have..... but at what cost?


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 21, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Try taking a picture of a sparkling white waterfall and black rocks.... I couldn't cover the range at all with film, can get pretty close with a single shot now that I have digital, and no problem at all with HDR photography.



Unless those black rocks are shadowed, any modern DSLR should have no trouble at all holding detail in them in a single exposure -- assuming, of course, you don't underexpose (which is surprisingly easy to unwittingly do, especially considering the way most onboard meters desperately and over-aggressively try to avoid blowing highlights). If they're in open or filtered shade, you should still be okay, but maybe not if you're looking for a more painterly HDR-ish rendition. If they're significantly shadowed, yes, you'll either have to wait for better light or use a graduated neutral density filter or blend multiple exposures.

But...thing is...Nikon only gives you a couple extra stops to work with. Most situations where the Canon actually does lack the dynamic range, you're going to need to add more than just a couple extra stops. Realistically, you're probably looking at a +/-2 - +/-3 stop bracket, which works out to four to six stops of additional dynamic range -- and even the Nikons can't do that in a single exposure.

So, all those times that you've wished you didn't need your two-stop GND or that you didn't have to do that +/-1 bracket, that's when a Nikon would have saved the day. The rest of the time? When you're reaching for your four-stop GND or doing a +/-3 (or more) bracket? Not so much.

Pardon me while I try to remember how to swoon....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## shtarker (Mar 21, 2013)

Why do the other brand owners spend so much time stalking Canon forums and bragging about how much better their cameras are? Some people need to get a life.

It's because Canon is number one in sales and they don't like being second.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Mar 21, 2013)

Welcome, Canosony. I see you've met Canon Rumors' ever-vigilant troll patrol. They pretty quickly turned me off to what looked like a promising website. You have committed the cardinal sin. You have pointed out that Canon cameras are not without shortcomings. We'll have none of that here, sir. For starters, you'll be dragged into the village square and and stoned with names like "troll."

It doesn't matter that your remarks about the performance of current Canon sensors are based in solid fact--both scientific testing and the empirical experience of thousands of Canon users. The keepers of the flame know a troll when they see one, and you, sir, are a troll. A saboteur, an agent provocateur embedded by the fiends at Nikon and Sony to breed sedition among the loyal minions of Canon. You crossed your fingers behind your back when you took the loyalty oath. Shame on you.

Expect to be met with absurd claims such as the one that Canon's technology never limited anyone's photographic options. If you disagree, the Pavlovian response of the troll patrol is to claim that the equipment doesn't matter. Criticism of Canon is simply _prima facie_ evidence that you, sir, are a bad photographer.

Like me. I'm a bad photographer every time I take my 5D2 outdoors on a bright day. It's blown highlight city unless I mount and fiddle with ND filters, keep the horizon out of the composition, exposure compensate well to the left, or bracket and hope that nothing moves. But wanting more dynamic range, like, dare I say, Nikon's D800? That just proves I'm an incompetent whiner.

If you haven't figured it out already, Canosony, know this: there are a fair number of people on this forum who seem to think that any criticism of their chosen camera maker is tantamount to questioning their sexual endowment. You know how touchy people can be about that.

It ought to be possible to state a simple fact--such as the comparatively limited dynamic range of Canons sensors--without people immediately becoming defensive and resorting to name-calling. And it's a pity one can't. A number of knowledgeable people do bring up interesting and important issues in this forum. But all too many CR threads (like this one) quickly degenerate into the same tired, vitriolic defense of Canon as the only true photographic religion.

I can only speak for myself, Canosony, but there are people on this forum who would make me proud to wear the scarlet _T_ of trolldom. As proof, let me throw this additional oil on the fire. I've come to rely almost exclusively on my cell phone when I want simple candids to share with family without the bother of a lot of post-processing. And it's not because I'm oblivious to IQ in those shots. On the contrary, I use my cell phone because under artificial light its simple camera nails white balance time after time. Can we expect as much from the world's largest manufacturer of photographic equipment? Not in my experience. Under the same conditions, and no matter what white balance setting I use, my 5D2 and S95 turn people colors never seen in nature.

Of course, 90% of all photographers don't need or care about accurate white balance anyway. It's picky and churlish of me to point out this niggling shortcoming. So smite away, guardians of the gate.


----------



## timmy_650 (Mar 21, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> krjc said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a Canon guy 100%! But more DR capability is always better if everything else is equal.
> ...



If you need more DR put it in. It is rather simple to do. You look back at people like Ansel Adams, I would say his great work happened in the dark room and the same is today, it is happening in the dark room (CS, lightroom ect)
But I agree it would be nice to have superb pictures straight out of the camera but i am fine with great and making them superb.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 21, 2013)

Curmudgeon said:


> Welcome, Canosony. I see you've met Canon Rumors' ever-vigilant troll patrol. They pretty quickly turned me off to what looked like a promising website. You have committed the cardinal sin. You have pointed out that Canon cameras are not without shortcomings. We'll have none of that here, sir. For starters, you'll be dragged into the village square and and stoned with names like "troll."
> 
> It doesn't matter that your remarks about the performance of current Canon sensors are based in solid fact--both scientific testing and the empirical experience of thousands of Canon users. The keepers of the flame know a troll when they see one, and you, sir, are a troll. A saboteur, an agent provocateur embedded by the fiends at Nikon and Sony to breed sedition among the loyal minions of Canon. You crossed your fingers behind your back when you took the loyalty oath. Shame on you.
> 
> ...


Hmm, I'm not sure why you write like that. I think very few people will deny that the D800 has a better dynamic range but I also think, like I've stated before, that when there is a discussion about any new technology or whatever some people always walks in a starts talking about the superior DR of the D800 which often is completely irrelevant for that actual discussion. The subject is emptied out already, everyone knows that. I know my 5D3 has limitations, but I am not man enough yet to take it there. I know though that its' great AF and high ISO capabilities has helped me many times to capture photos that I with my old 60D wouldn't have been able to get good. I think 'Stay on subject!' is what many are trying to say.


----------



## minim2 (Mar 21, 2013)

I dont understand what this DR gossip/bragging is all about.. Anyways, I got convinced and went to sell all my canon gears to buy nikon 6D.. shop owner was offering sensor cleaning kit for free (dont know why).... but when I asked for some speciality lenses.. he returned my money and got angry....

Later on he was mumbling something like this...

Actually the sensor in mine is from Sony.
Notice how Canon owners don't know their stuff.


----------



## minim2 (Mar 21, 2013)

I know it is pointless thing I have written... but then people started all that pointless discussion.

In forums like this... I feel there are far too many repeaters and very few transmitters... otherwise we should see lot of examples of how canon is limiting their creativity and how often they run into those scenarios...


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 21, 2013)

minim2 said:


> I know it is pointless thing I have written... but then people started all that pointless discussion.
> 
> In forums like this... I feel there are far too many repeaters and very few transmitters... otherwise we should see lot of examples of how canon is limiting their creativity and how often they run into those scenarios...



glad you cleared that up as google translate came up blank too
I still have no idea what you were actually trying to say there


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 21, 2013)

Curmudgeon said:


> Welcome, Canosony. I see you've met Canon Rumors' ever-vigilant troll patrol. They pretty quickly turned me off to what looked like a promising website. You have committed the cardinal sin. You have pointed out that Canon cameras are not without shortcomings. We'll have none of that here, sir. For starters, you'll be dragged into the village square and and stoned with names like "troll."
> 
> It doesn't matter that your remarks about the performance of current Canon sensors are based in solid fact--both scientific testing and the empirical experience of thousands of Canon users. The keepers of the flame know a troll when they see one, and you, sir, are a troll. A saboteur, an agent provocateur embedded by the fiends at Nikon and Sony to breed sedition among the loyal minions of Canon. You crossed your fingers behind your back when you took the loyalty oath. Shame on you.
> 
> ...



+1
I often felt the same.
Seems like if 1DX + 24-70 L II are unrivaled in many respects, then all of Canon lineup is to be considered on the same level.

I often hear this DR thing about Nikon cameras, and that as far as everything else is concerned they are worse. Seriously?

Is the 1DX better than the D4? Probably.
Is the 5D3 better than the D800? Disputable, mostly it depends on the application. Sure the 5D3 is more expensive.
Is the 6D better than the D600? Disputable - but leaning toward *most likely not*. And the D600 is again cheaper.

Below that, every Nikon Camera crushes its Canon equivalent in terms of IQ (aka sensor), MP, AF, features, etc. And *price*. And that's not only Nikon, before I get called Nikon troll of fanboy. Even Pentax has better sensors. Olympus, Fuji and Sony are lightyears ahead in CSC and mirrorless. Panasonic and Samsung seem to get better and better too.

How about lenses? Yes, Canon has some great ones and even unique, especially in the +1500$ range. But below that? Would we like to compare mid-priced primes and zooms? Would we like to assess Canon's deficiency in providing good value for money for the enthusiasts, or just students and other hobbyst who won't/can't shell out several grands each time? Affordable Canon lenses are most often old and not comparable to competing products in the same price range. Luckily Tamron and Sigma are seeing to that, providing excellent lenses at reasonable prices.

Funniest thing I always hear is that Canon is better because of the easier UI. Apparently the average Canon user can't stand reading a manual and going through the most gentle learning curve. That's much more important than IQ, value for money, etc. Nikon... izzz... diffeekoolt... me no undestandz...

So Canon is kinda becoming like Leica: great system, but the entry fee is quite steep. Are you willing to spend 5000-10000$ for your gear? Then yes, Canon is competitive in that segment. Are you willing to spend 1000-4000$ (which is not small money, as a matter of fact)? Then Canon is the worst you can buy. Buy anything from Canon below the 5D3 and L glass (some, not even all of them are that good) and you're sure getting much less than with competing products but paying much more. 

But no, it's just whining... Canon products are _good enough_. As Curmudgeon stated, owners of 1DX like to say that gear doesn't matter. Complaining about plain discrepancies between performance and pricing of Canon's recent releases is a symptom of poor skill and knowledge. Canon cameras are the most sold, so they must be better.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 21, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Unless those black rocks are shadowed, any modern DSLR should have no trouble at all holding detail in them in a single exposure -- assuming, of course, you don't underexpose (which is surprisingly easy to unwittingly do, especially considering the way most onboard meters desperately and over-aggressively try to avoid blowing highlights). If they're in open or filtered shade, you should still be okay, but maybe not if you're looking for a more painterly HDR-ish rendition. If they're significantly shadowed, yes, you'll either have to wait for better light or use a graduated neutral density filter or blend multiple exposures.
> 
> But...thing is...Nikon only gives you a couple extra stops to work with. Most situations where the Canon actually does lack the dynamic range, you're going to need to add more than just a couple extra stops. Realistically, you're probably looking at a +/-2 - +/-3 stop bracket, which works out to four to six stops of additional dynamic range -- and even the Nikons can't do that in a single exposure.
> 
> So, all those times that you've wished you didn't need your two-stop GND or that you didn't have to do that +/-1 bracket, that's when a Nikon would have saved the day. The rest of the time? When you're reaching for your four-stop GND or doing a +/-3 (or more) bracket? Not so much.


I totally agree ... but those who want to crib about Canon will not want to accept facts.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 21, 2013)

Curmudgeon said:


> Expect to be met with absurd claims such as the one that Canon's technology never limited anyone's photographic options.


It is only absurd to those who continue to dodge the questions such as "did Canon technology ever limit your options from making a great photo" or to those who are smoking certain magic stuff grown from a Unicorn's behind in Narnia.


Curmudgeon said:


> If you haven't figured it out already, Canosony, know this: there are a fair number of people on this forum who seem to think that any criticism of their chosen camera maker is tantamount to questioning their sexual endowment. You know how touchy people can be about that.


You sir are most amusing, perhaps thou hast not thought this through ... allow me the liberty of stating that it applies to those who are blowing trumpets and worshiping a few *small* increments of DR and 6 *small* additional Mega pixels (on their Nikon & Sony Sensors) on a Canon forum ... common sense says do NOT flaunt thine *small* "endowment" in someone's abode without expecting someone to call thee a troll - but I suppose common sense is not very common ... DR is such a *small* thing that it will not make or break a photographer from making a magnificent image. If someone thinks that a few small increments in DR and 6 additional MP are going to magically transform their images to some magical heights of brilliance then their immediate need is solid education in the basics of photography.
BTW, I use both Canon & Nikon systems and appreciate both for their unique abilities and I try to use the best of each system (within my means) without cribbing and crying that one does not have what the other has etc ... use what you like or switch to the other side ... after all they are just tools limited only by our skill. 


Albi86 said:


> How about lenses? Yes, Canon has some great ones and even unique, especially in the +1500$ range. But below that? Would we like to compare mid-priced primes and zooms? Would we like to assess Canon's deficiency in providing good value for money for the enthusiasts, or just students and other hobbyst who won't/can't shell out several grands each time? Affordable Canon lenses are most often old and not comparable to competing products in the same price range.


You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
What? more than $380 for a lens that does not even have image stabilization? but no problem, let us continue to sing glorious songs about Nikon/Sony sensors bcoz there is magical DR and 6 additonal MP in them, so they are going to elevate our images to the magical proportions of a unicorn's behind from Narnia 

Then lets go on to the popular zoom range lenses for wild life photography:
Canon EF 100-400 L IS = $1459
Nikon 80-400 ED VR = $2697 (even the old, which most Nikon users used to bad mouth, was selling for $1698)
Over $1200 difference for the newer version of the Nikon 80-400 lens ... but hey we like to live in the world of ignorance, therefore, we will only crib about how Canon lenses are "not comparable to competing products in the same price range" bcoz the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II is $300 more than the older Nikon lens 

Look. the simple truth is: no matter which system you choose (Canon or Nikon) you will end up spending pretty much the same amount of money on equivalent gear ... I've used (and continue to use) both Canon & Nikon gear, so I am speaking from my personal experience.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 21, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
> Since we are discussing in a APS-C DSLR thread lets discuss the best lenses made for APS-C DSLRs:
> Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS = $1019
> Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ED-IF-AF-S DX (without Image Stabilization/VR) = $1399
> ...



Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM: 594$
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC: 649$

Not to mention the new Sigma 17-70. Add the new Nikkor 1.8 G primes, the DX primes, the very good walkarounds like 18-105 and 18-300, etc. I could add the 200-400/4 too, but that's not the point: as I said I'm not talking about the +1000-1500$ segment. If price is never a problem, Canon is indeed quite good.

I also never stated that Nikon system is perfect. I stated that Canon is failing in delivering *quality at a reasonable price*. I'm talking about the segment of market made of people willing to spend some good money, but *below* the pro-gear price range. With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers. If there is always more value in non-Canon lenses, which means one ends up buying mostly non-Canon lenses, there's very few reasons to stick with Canon cameras. On top of that, as I mentioned before, below the 3000$ price range, Nikon cameras offer more than their Canon counterparts for less money. But the same is true for the mirrorless and CSC segment, clearly dominated by Fuji, Olympus and Sony. 

The bigger picture of Canon's recent releases has been: we don't care about the mid-price segment. That's what people complain about, and what's perfectly embodied by old sensor technology and stripped-down-to-the-bone bodies. Sensor shortcomings go down much easier if paired to a good set of features (like the 5D3 or 1DX) or a more affordable price. Unfortunately that's not the case.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 21, 2013)

what the fuk.. the same old 18MP sensor just with some wider hybrid AF area.
and the hybrid focus is still slower then mirrorles cameras.

i feel with the poor simpletons here who thought canon will bring an improved sensor. :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 21, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > You seriously need to do some home work on lens prices before you make such comments.
> ...


I've used both those lenses (Sigma: bought and sold in 2010, Tamron: bought and sold in 2011) and they are *NOWHERE* near the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, be it IQ, built quality or the AF performance. Also those 2 lenses have had numerous quality control issues including but not limited to front focus, back focus, noisy stabilization & noisy AF issues. Spending $600 - $700 on those lenses is not worth it, when one can get a gem of a lens by spending another $300 more to get the EF 17-55 f/2.8 L IS


Albi86 said:


> With Canon nowadays almost no lens below 1 grand is worth attention or stands clearly above the offer of other manufacturers.


First you were questioning Canon lenses "below $1500", when I gave you proof you quickly turn around and drop your figure to below $1000 ... no problem lets go through those lenses ... but let me agree with you on Nikkor 18-300 VR, I recently purchased this lens and it is a decent performer (not as good as 18-200 VR but decent nevertheless), yes Canon does not have an equivalent of 18-300 VR in price or size.

Here are some great lenses from Canon *under $1000*, both zooms and primes:
1. Canon EF-S 15-85mm lens = $649
2. Canon EF-S 10-20mm lens = $719
3. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = $699
4. Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L = $674
5. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 L IS = $899
6. Canon EF 100 f/2.8 = $449
7. Canon EF 24mm IS = $649
8. Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS = $579
9. Canon EF 24mm f/1.8 = $449
10. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 = $339
11. Canon EF 50mm Macro = $269
12. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 = $94
13. Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro = $399
14. Canon 85mm f/1.8 = $359
15. Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 = 149
16. Canon EF 70-300 = $499
17. Canon EF 135mm f/2 L = $949
Now here are a couple of bonus lenses for you: Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS & Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS normally sell for under $1049 but there are dozens of online stores and regular stores who are selling it for $949 (i.e. below "1 grand"). By the way I have not listed several other decent lenses that are under "1 grand" and also those that can be purchased during sale or refurbished* for under "1 grand"* e.g. Canon EF 400 f/5.6 L or the 70-200 f/4 L IS. 
If someone tells me that they cannot make great images with any one of those above lenses, then they first need to check all the millions of FANTASTIC images made with those lenses on flickr and many other sites, then they need to sign up for a course on some basic understanding of photography.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 21, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...


Rienz, forget it. It's pointless. Some people will spend an awful lot of time badmouthing Canon and its' products and they're clearly not interested in listening to reason. I'm glad you listed the 15-85 first, it's simply an awesome lens and I miss mine every day simce I went FF.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 21, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



+1 and excellent points ... But IMHO you are wasting your time and barking up the wrong tree. This debate almost always ends up with hand waving and chest beating in a viscous circle usually something like this-

Comment: I have 4 canon bodies and they have poor IQ?
Q. Huh? Why do you say that?
A. Nikon has 14 stops of DR.
Q. So do you need those stops?
A. Well yes. I need to recover shadow detail from my shots I underexposed by 3 stops.
Q. If you shot correctly how would canon limit you?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon.
Q. But has Canon limited your shots in any way?
A. Always
Q. Can you post some pics where this has happened?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon
Q. But do you have any pics where you've been limited by Canon? If yes, post some shots.
A. Look at DXO, FM
Q. Don't you get it? Can you post any pictures where you have been limited by Canon?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM, the Internet is full of stuff ... Please google it yourself. 
Q. You still don't get it. Can you post any pictures where YOUR shots have been limited by Canon?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM
Q. I give up 
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM. And you have the gall to accuse me of trolling
Q. You haven't posted any shots where you have been limited in your creativity by Canon ... How do you say Canon's IQ is bad?
A. But Nikon has more DR than Canon. Oh look at DXO, FM
Q. But how do you claim Canon's IQ is bad?
A. It is, Nikon has more DR than Canon.
Q. Then why don't you go ahead and shoot Nikon?
A. Silence
Q. Ohk, maybe that's the end of that. 
A. How can you call me a troll? You have nothing in your response ... Canon is bad, Nikon has more DR than Canon, look at DXO, FM and other internet sites, and oh yes, I think Canon is expensive!
Q. I give up


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 21, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...


Ha ha ha ... very true ... I liked your Q&A session, made me laugh


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 21, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Rienz, forget it. It's pointless. Some people will spend an awful lot of time badmouthing Canon and its' products and they're clearly not interested in listening to reason. I'm glad you listed the 15-85 first, it's simply an awesome lens and I miss mine every day simce I went FF.


Although I never owned the EF-S 15-85mm lens, I got to borrow it from a friend of mine for a day ... this was when I had the 7D ... I really liked that lens and almost bought it, but since I always wanted to go FF and was building my EF lenses for quite some time, I gave up the idea and stayed with EF 24-105 f/4 L IS. If I were to stay with APS-C, my first lens would be 15-85 for its versatility and great image quality ... it really works well with the EOS 7D ... one of the best camera, lens combos out there.


----------



## Sella174 (Mar 21, 2013)

On the subject of the sub-$1500 lens segment ... Low-light "performance" is unimportant to me, just as high ISO capabilities. (I'd love an affordable DSLR that can shoot ISO*25*.) With this in mind, Canon recently "updated" several of the old Ugly-Duckling primes _and added IS to them!_ I do not need IS and in my opinion (and vantage point) Canon just did it as a reason for upping the price.

Canon is also sticking with APS-C sensors, but are not coming to the party with EF-S primes. Why not? Oh yes, they want me to buy an FF prime with IS ... making me pay for optical glass I do not need and for functionality I do not need.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 21, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Canon is also sticking with APS-C sensors, but are not coming to the party with EF-S primes. Why not? Oh yes, they want me to buy an FF prime with IS ... making me pay for optical glass I do not need and for functionality I do not need.


Canon already has several prime lenses without IS that work both on FF & Crop and are quite reasonably priced.


----------



## Sella174 (Mar 21, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Canon already has several prime lenses without IS that work both on FF & Crop and are quite reasonably priced.



It's not just the IS, but the whole benefit of an APS-C size sensor is not realised. And what's the use of a small EOS 100D camera if we are forced to using larger-than-necessary FF primes?

Without malicious intentions, but do please name those primes that are "reasonably priced" and not also more than fifteen years old. Yes, the *EF 40mm f/2.8 STM* is one ... and that's it.


----------



## IronChef (Mar 21, 2013)

The 100D still bigger than the OMD. Especially with when you attach a big lens on it.
http://j.mp/Yd9RVG


I don't see the 100d succeeding. DSLR's have their strengths and Canon should focus on that. Things like ergonomics, functionality and autofocus. The 100D isn't good at these things and isn't that compact either. What's the point?


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 22, 2013)

IronChef said:


> The 100D still bigger than the OMD. Especially with when you attach a big lens on it.
> http://j.mp/Yd9RVG
> 
> 
> I don't see the 100d succeeding. DSLR's have their strengths and Canon should focus on that. Things like ergonomics, functionality and autofocus. The 100D isn't good at these things and isn't that compact either. What's the point?



How can you say that? It's small but it can still be very usable for people with small hands. When it comes to functionality, what do you mean? I think creative modes etc will be very functional for its' target market. Autofocus- compared to what?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 22, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Canon already has several prime lenses without IS that work both on FF & Crop and are quite reasonably priced.
> ...


I mean no disrespect to you or your gear but looking at your gear list in your signature, I see you use what most people consider as an "old" camera and lens set up ... so are you suggesting that the gear that you are currently using is limiting your creative abilities? are they not good enough for you? Are you suggesting that 15+ year old lenses are not able provide enough resolving power for your EOS 30D? ... going by our gear list, you do not have any fast primes other than f/2.8 ... the 50mm f/1.8 (regardless of its age) is a fantastic lens for just $94, by the way fast prime are *not just about* "low light performance" (step down the f/stop on any of the f/1.4 or 1.8 lenses and see what they can do) ... there are many great prime lenses that are well below $500, some of which I have already listed in my earlier post e.g. 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 etc, and there are also several more lenses which I did not list, all of them can easily out resolve what your 30D is capable of. First you were complaining about "without IS" lenses, when I tell there are many primes without IS you start complaining that they are 15+ years old, but those 15+ year old lenses can make AWESOME images with your 30D. You say: Canon is "making me pay for optical glass I do not need and for functionality I do not need" ... but no one can "make you pay" anything, if you are not happy or satisfied with 15+ year old Canon lenses and that your EOS 30D only needs the latest lens, start by purchasing the 40 f/2.8 or you can switch to Nikon, Sony or whoever it is that is giving what you want. Canon markets to a huge customer base who want/like Image Stabilization ... now we can all scoff at that customer base and say they are hobbyists, beginners or whatever but that is the customer base which brings in big the money for Canon ... one has to remember that Canon is a profit making company that has a responsibility to its shareholders ... just because a few customers want cheap primes without IS for their APS-C cameras it is not gonna happen .... like it or lump it Image Stabilization is here to stay and it is very naive to think that those latest lenses are going to cost similar to 15+ year old lenses.


----------



## IronChef (Mar 22, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> IronChef said:
> 
> 
> > The 100D still bigger than the OMD. Especially with when you attach a big lens on it.
> ...



I'm sure it's useable for people with small hands, but generally it's not as ergonomic as a bigger DSLR. The 700D has better specs and is just $100 more. The 100D it isn't that more compact. The problem is the thickness http://j.mp/13hzTJb. Thick items will bulge your bag much more than thin and wide items, like books or magazines. Also, the lenses are still big.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 22, 2013)

IronChef said:


> The 100D still bigger than the OMD. Especially with when you attach a big lens on it.
> http://j.mp/Yd9RVG
> 
> http://canonrumors.com/forum/Smileys/default/shocked.gif
> I don't see the 100d succeeding. DSLR's have their strengths and Canon should focus on that. Things like ergonomics, functionality and autofocus. The 100D isn't good at these things and isn't that compact either. What's the point?


Olympus OM-D E-M5 is a Micro Four Thirds *mirror less* camera whereas Canon 100D is an APS-C sensor *DSLR* camera obviously there is going to be a difference in size :


----------



## Sella174 (Mar 22, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I mean no disrespect to you or your gear but looking at your gear list in your signature, I see you use what most people consider as an "old" camera and lens set up ... so are you suggesting that the gear that you are currently using is limiting your creative abilities? are they not good enough for you? Are you suggesting that 15+ year old lenses are not able provide enough resolving power for your EOS 30D? ...



The photographic gear that I have is gear that works for me. In no way am I dissatisfied with the 30D and the three lenses I own. My point is that every year Canon brings out new cameras and lenses; and every year I don't "upgrade" my gear because none of the new offerings really interest me.

The *EF 24mm f/2.8* is a good lens, but ... (1) my _c._1971 *Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:3.5/24* is better in all departments; and (2) the old micro-motor AF without real-time manual focus is really old technology. So why shouldn't I expect an updated version, with USM, after 24 years in production? (I may just mention that the 24mm is mostly used at f/11.)

I did buy the *EF 40mm f/2.8 STM*, but sold it again - didn't like the colours. I also sold my *EF 50mm f/1.4 USM* when I dumped my Canon film gear - a 50mm works on FF, but not CF ... for me that is.



Rienzphotoz said:


> ... but no one can "make you pay" anything ...



Canon is. Take the EOS 6D and the (discontinued) EOS 5D Mk.II ... image that FF sensor is now a CF sensor (same MP, etc., just CF instead of FF) and what do you get ... a "Rebel" in disguise.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 22, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > I mean no disrespect to you or your gear but looking at your gear list in your signature, I see you use what most people consider as an "old" camera and lens set up ... so are you suggesting that the gear that you are currently using is limiting your creative abilities? are they not good enough for you? Are you suggesting that 15+ year old lenses are not able provide enough resolving power for your EOS 30D? ...
> ...


Your post is full of contradictions, you say you are in "noway dissatisfied with the 30D and the three lenses" you own and that you "don't upgrade every year" not to mention that you use a camera which was made 8 years ago (no disrespect intended), you also do not want to buy the new IS lenses, yet you say: "why shouldn't I expect an updated version" ... profit making companies do not cater to customers like you who upgrade once in almost a decade ... the world has changed brother, wake up and smell the coffee, majority of the customers now want IS lenses and they are willing to pay the money for it. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful to you or your gear, (you can probably make better images with your "older" gear than I can with my 5D MK III and the relatively newer lenses), but those are the facts.


----------



## Sella174 (Mar 22, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ... profit making companies do not cater to customers like you who upgrade once in almost a decade ...



Canon took nearly 24 years before updating the 24mm f/2.8 and the 35mm f/2 lenses. It kind of stands to reason that those of us who use(d) those lenses didn't upgrade because we had nothing to upgrade to ... what we already own(ed) was it.

My point with the fifteen years is that, apart from the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM and, oh, the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon has basically placed us users of non-L primes on Neptune with regards to our important to their business model. That's their decision. They know best.

The coffee smells great ... but just how well are those new IS primes selling?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 22, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> The coffee smells great


Ha ha ha ... good one.


Sella174 said:


> but just how well are those new IS primes selling?


That's a good question, I can't speak for the rest of the world but 5 of my colleagues & friends bought the 24 IS & 28 IS (2 bought the 24 and 3 bought the 28), had a chance to check out the 28 IS, it is amazingly sharp ... personally I wanted to buy either the 24 IS or 28 IS, but I'm holding off till a sale comes along (maybe Christmas time?) ... but the price of 28 IS did come down to $579, but I'm a bit greedy waiting till it goes down to at least $500 ;D


----------



## bholliman (Mar 22, 2013)

While the SL1/100D is not a camera that interest me, I think it will sell pretty well for point and shoot owners looking to move up to a DLSR. 

My wife currently uses a P&S and hates to use my 6D or 7D because they are so large and heavy (especially with the 70-200 2.8 II attached). She said the SL1 is something something she would consider.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 23, 2013)

IronChef said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > IronChef said:
> ...


----------



## Sella174 (Mar 23, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ... but I'm a bit greedy waiting till it goes down to at least $500 ;D



I'll most probably end up buying the 24mm IS version ... because in my weird reasoning it will put off having to buy new cameras by another few years ... although the new EOS 100D has definitely application for me ... 

I am still, however, of the opinion that the real success of the EOS 100D will hinge on whether Canon gets their act together with two or three small EF-S primes ... 15mm & 22mm ... plus a genuine APS-C fish-eye lens.

Apples & oranges, but ... http://j.mp/ZiPnUU


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 23, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > ... but I'm a bit greedy waiting till it goes down to at least $500 ;D
> ...


I'm with you on that ... if they are similar sized like the shorty forty, it'd be even more awesome.


----------



## CanNotYet (Mar 23, 2013)

Sorry if this sounds smug or anything, but on the new IS prime, couldn't you just turn it off if you do not want it?  Cheaper for Canon to manufacture just one lens with two functions.

Aside from that, I do agree that Canon (or 3rd party) could take a part of the market with small, light, inexpensive primes. (like 40/2.8 and 50/1.8) They could skimp on features (micromotor AF etc.) to achieve it. I would buy them.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 23, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> I do agree that Canon (or 3rd party) could take a part of the market with small, light, inexpensive primes. (like 40/2.8 and 50/1.8) They could skimp on features (micromotor AF etc.) to achieve it. I would buy them.


Good point ... but I wonder why Sigma, Tamron & Tokina have not really ventured into that territory ... maybe the market for small primes isn't big enough for them?


----------



## Sella174 (Mar 23, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ... but I wonder why Sigma, Tamron & Tokina have not really ventured into that territory ... maybe the market for small primes isn't big enough for them?



I think you nailed the reason in a previous post ... most people want IS and USM (or equivalent designation), and these two technologies add considerable bulk to a lens.

Also, looking specifically at Sigma ... they have an "EF-S" fish-eye, but because the optics are shared with the Nikon version it is not a true 180 degree perspective on Canon APS-C cameras. So what's the point, Sigma?



CanNotYet said:


> Cheaper for Canon to manufacture just one lens with two functions.



But more expensive for the consumer who doesn't want that "second" functionality.

Relate this back to cameras ... nearly all DSLR's now have pretty decent video capabilities. Great, if you want and use it. Not and you're paying for capabilities (i.e. development and production cost) you don't need.

Or what about the DSLR videographer ... does (s)he need 61 cross-type, -3 EV-sensitive AF-points with multi-spotmetering and 1/8000 shutter-speeds? Nope. But (s)he's paying for it.


----------



## tomscott (Mar 23, 2013)

I dont know if it has been said in this thread but cant be bothered to go through the whole thing. 

The 100D/SL1 has 9 Af points but only one is cross type just like the 6D so the CR info is wrong. I was really excited when I read it had 9 cross type! I was going to buy one as a small second camera to replace my mirrorless because I like a proper viewfinder.

From Canon "9 AF points (f/5.6 cross type at centre, extra sensitivity at f/2.8)"

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_100D/index.aspx#p-specification


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 23, 2013)

tomscott said:


> The 100D/SL1 has 9 Af points but only one is cross type just like the 6D so the CR info is wrong. I was really excited when I read it had 9 cross type! I was going to buy one as a small second camera to replace my mirrorless because I like a proper viewfinder.
> 
> From Canon "9 AF points (f/5.6 cross type at centre, extra sensitivity at f/2.8)"



yes. evry disappointing. Canon obviously felt the need to market differentiate between SL1/100D and T5i/700D ... the latter has all cross points. Really ridiculous and disappointing.


----------



## Sella174 (Mar 25, 2013)

Canon _wants_ you to look at the 100D ... compare it with the 700D ... and later with the 70D ... decide what features you want and need, and what you don't ... just so's you get a mighty big headache and say: "Screw this, I'll buy a 5D Mk.III, 'cause then I'll have all the features _and_ full-frame to boot! With a 1D-X as backup body."


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 25, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Canon _wants_ you to look at the 100D ... compare it with the 700D ... and later with the 70D ... decide what features you want and need, and what you don't ... just so's you get a mighty big headache and say: "Screw this, I'll buy a 5D Mk.III, 'cause then I'll have all the features _and_ full-frame to boot! With a 1D-X as backup body."


Ha ha ha ... not a bad marketing strategy ;D


----------



## bluez (Apr 6, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > wow!
> ...



@ Don

the Rebel t3i (eos 600d) has a 3x video crop mode. At 3x the 2mp senter pixels of the sensor is used at it gives a *3x crop i full HD with no loss in image quality* with the right lens. This mode is amazing and is the main reason why i bought the t3i.

Eos 650D/600d/T4i/T3i + Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4. HD Video-Crop

(it was removed by Canon on the t3i / 650d , i think they unjustefied got afraid that people would not buy long lenses.

I was hoping that Canon would include it in the new eos 100d, they did not.

Nikon has included this feature in sveral models so i hope that Canon comes to their senses.


----------



## WinterComing (May 23, 2014)

TrumpetPower! said:


> I hate to break it to y'all, but that's not a camera.
> 
> It's a mechanical black poodle.
> 
> ...




Here's a more serious link. http://www.upcchecker.com/013803222654/


----------

