# Canon Still Working on New 800mm Lens [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 30, 2015)

```
We’ve been told over the years that Canon is working on a new 800mm lens, which is likely true and such development does in fact take years. The current 800mm f/5.6L IS has been a tough sell since the launch of the EF 600mm f/4L IS II, as the image quality you get from the 600mm lens and a 1.4 III teleconverter is generally considered better and you get an 840mm f/5.6 lens.</p>
<p>We’ve seen patents for a new 800mm lens in both DO and non-DO forms and thought we’d have seen a new one by now to at least match the materials and performance of the 300-600mm lenses that were launched 5 or so years ago.</p>
<p>An unknown source says Canon is developing an 800mm f/5.6L with a 1.4 TC built into it like the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x., which would give you an 1120mm f/6.3 when the teleconverter is put in place.</p>
<p>We’re not sure how many big white lenses Canon is currently selling, but it feels that there may be some market saturation for the lenses and we’re not sure there ever needs to be an 800mm replacement. It’s going to have to offer something quite unique to get current owners of big white lenses to get on board.</p>
<p>We wonder if some sort of a supertelephoto zoom above 600mm would be doable and cost effective.</p>
<p>An appropriate amount of salt recommended for this one.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Kim Bentsen (Dec 30, 2015)

That would be 1120mm f/8.

_An unknown source says Canon is developing an 800mm f/5.6L with a 1.4 TC built into it like the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x., which would give you an 1120mm f/6.3 when the teleconverter is put in place._


----------



## RGF (Dec 30, 2015)

Kim Bentsen said:


> That would be 1120mm f/8.
> 
> _An unknown source says Canon is developing an 800mm f/5.6L with a 1.4 TC built into it like the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x., which would give you an 1120mm f/6.3 when the teleconverter is put in place._



Agree unless they have some trick up their sleeve. In which case they have defeated optics.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> It’s going to have to offer something quite unique to get current owners of big white lenses to get on board.



I could see an 800/5.6 DO lens, physically shorter than the 600/4 II, being attractive to some...especially if launched before a 600/4 DO.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > It’s going to have to offer something quite unique to get current owners of big white lenses to get on board.
> ...


+1
That is the only reasonable option. the 600 f4L IS II with 1.4xIII delivers IQ which makes an 800 obsolete. But a stellar performing DO lens may be a different story, especially if the 600 DO is f5.6.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2015)

Eldar said:


> +1
> That is the only reasonable option. the 600 f4L IS II with 1.4xIII delivers IQ which makes *an 800 obsolete*. But a stellar performing DO lens may be a different story, especially if the 600 DO is f5.6.



It may make the current 800 obsolete, it wouldn't necessarily make a new version obsolete.
A new 800mm that is lighter, slightly better IQ and improved stabilization would make it viable.

You know it would bug to no end the birders that are gear heads. Just having the knowledge that there is a slightly better option available in the 800mm range than their 600mm II with a 1.4x III. This knowledge would cause psychological harm, a tendency to repeatedly put the lens in the basket or on a watch list at B&H. It would cause an unwanted tendency to pull the credit card out and start entering the numbers only to stop half way through. Then in a time of weakness to order the thing.


----------



## TeT (Dec 30, 2015)

800 with a 1.4 on a crop body; sharp with good color and contrast would get alot of attention (1792mm)


----------



## mnclayshooter (Dec 30, 2015)

I have a question that may or may not have a very intelligent answer as it's not a super intelligent question.. 

Why bother saying that this is an 800mm lens with a built-in 1.4x teleconverter... why not just call it a 1120mm lens? Is there an ability to not use the teleconverter? I have zero experience with the 200-400 so bear with my ignorance. 


Edit: never mind - I found the answer... it is selectable. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html?gclid=CLCa-siKhMoCFQMFaQodDPsHuA

Anyone know how this works? just out of curiosity does it flip down or slide out of the way inside the barrel of the lens? - referring to the 200-400, that is... assuming that it would be somewhat similar on this proposed 800+??? lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...


or......
you could get the following:
http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/optical-tubes/edgehd-14-optical-tube-assembly

You can use it as a 3910mm lens at F10, or you can remove the secondary mirror and it converts to a 780mm lens at F2.... and it only weighs 46 pounds!

Now that should get the fanatics salivating


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2015)

mnclayshooter said:


> *Is there an ability to not use the teleconverter? *



That would be the idea, and it could be turned off. Personally I am fine with a 800mm a few inches shorter and putting on a extender only when I need it.

But since the 800mm were talking about does not exist yet and it is as mythical as a unicorn, who knows it may have a 2x permanently attached and be a 1600mm lens. Then if you attach a 7D II body it becomes a 2560mm lens.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> You can use it as a 3910mm lens at F10,



At some point you have to say enough is enough. 

Just get out of your car and see if you can zoom the old fashion way. Just walk and see if you can get closer to the tweety birds.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 30, 2015)

mnclayshooter said:


> I have a question that may or may not have a very intelligent answer as it's not a super intelligent question..
> 
> Why bother saying that this is an 800mm lens with a built-in 1.4x teleconverter... why not just call it a 1120mm lens? Is there an ability to not use the teleconverter? I have zero experience with the 200-400 so bear with my ignorance.
> 
> ...



No stupid questions, only answers ;D

Yes the TC would swing in and out of the optical path via a small lever. Canon currently do this on the 200-400 f4, so you get a 200-400 f4 and a 280-560 f5.6, they did it years ago on the FD 1200 f5.6 too, that became a 1680 f8 but none are left in existence.

I can see a great deal of interest in a 600 IS MkII quality new 800 with built in TC, but the IQ would have to be better than the 600 plus 1.4 as a native and better than the 600 plus 2x TC with the 1.4 slotted in. It would give you a 1200 (close enough) f8 at a fraction of the price of the not so good and IS less EF 1200 f5.6, you'd be able to carry it too, unlike the native 1200..........


----------



## Berowne (Dec 30, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re not sure how many big white lenses Canon is currently selling, but it feels that there may be some market saturation for the lenses and we’re not sure there ever needs to be an 800mm replacement.



As i said sometime ago about the new 35mm Prime. If you build extremely well lenses with a long life expectancy you run in some dilemma when everybody who effectively can purchase such a lense own one.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2015)

TeT said:


> 800 with a 1.4 on a crop body; sharp with good color and contrast would get alot of attention (1792mm)



An 800 with a 1.4 is 1120 on any body - it doesn't get longer on a crop. I'm not splitting hairs: although its field of view on a crop is equivalent to that of a 1792mm on FF, its resolution depends on the pixel size of the sensor. The resolving power of a telephoto on a 5DS is about the same as on a 7DII as they have very similar pixel sizes.


----------



## TeT (Dec 30, 2015)

AlanF said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > 800 with a 1.4 on a crop body; sharp with good color and contrast would get alot of attention (1792mm)
> ...



You are correct; it is not splitting hairs... and arguments could be made for either filling up the view finder or cropping to it afterwards.


----------



## Tugela (Dec 30, 2015)

I would think that the market for massive lenses like this is quite limited, and not really worth their while to develop an updated version.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 30, 2015)

Having owned the current Canon 800 F5.6 L IS for over 2 years I can't see much room for significant improvement. Certainly the 600 F4 Mk2 is slightly better, but it is shorter and bulkier as well as being a piece more expensive on the used market. Many report that the 600 Mk2 + a Canon 1.4 Mk3 extender is better than the 800, perhaps it is in some circumstances. When I tried this combination I found the AF slower than the bare 800 with IS off(on my 1DX) though the IQ seemed to be as good.
Overall my current 800 (bought used) is better than my camera and was a LOT more reasonably priced than a new 600 Mk2! 
I am sure that Canon could, and probably will, make a better 800mm lens but so what? The current model is very hard to improve on, plus the new one will be hideously expensive, so of little interest to me.
One thing they could do though is get rid of the IS. Heresy I know but it just gets in the way of the AF system and many current pro cameras don't really need it - I certainly don't. Less complication, a useless element eliminated from the focal path and a couple of switches less - sounds good to me. Most will not agree but I have the lens and frequently hand hold it and I don't want IS. Feel free to open fire!


----------



## john1970 (Dec 30, 2015)

Interesting. Maybe they could pull off a Nikon and have the lens with a built-in 1.2x converter to convert the lens to a 960 mm f6.3 lens? Personally, I would much rather have a 600 mm f4 with a built in 1.4x converter. 2016 should be an interesting year for Canon lenses.

John


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2015)

TeT said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > TeT said:
> ...


Agreed!


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2015)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



They could make a 1000mm/5.6 DO. That's something no one else sells. It could be a ton smaller than the Sigma 200-500/2.8 since it's a little less aperture, a prime, and a DO.


----------



## TAF (Dec 31, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> One thing they could do though is get rid of the IS. Heresy I know but it just gets in the way of the AF system and many current pro cameras don't really need it - I certainly don't. Less complication, a useless element eliminated from the focal path and a couple of switches less - sounds good to me. Most will not agree but I have the lens and frequently hand hold it and I don't want IS. Feel free to open fire!



Interesting concept - since many potential customers for such long lenses might be inclined to use a tripod (or at least a monopod), rendering the IS less useful, perhaps they could develop a separate IS module?

Imagine a line of LONG lenses (starting at 800 and going up into the thousands), without IS, and an IS module you could add when needed. If the IS module was universal (i.e.: useable with both long and short lenses), it would also sell to those folks with say a 28/35/50 that would perhaps benefit from IS at times.

If it wasn't obscenely expensive, I'd buy one for use with my (gasp) Zeiss 50mm f1.4, et al.


----------



## dolina (Dec 31, 2015)

This silly rumor again. By 2020 it will be a reality. 8)


----------



## candc (Dec 31, 2015)

TAF said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > One thing they could do though is get rid of the IS. Heresy I know but it just gets in the way of the AF system and many current pro cameras don't really need it - I certainly don't. Less complication, a useless element eliminated from the focal path and a couple of switches less - sounds good to me. Most will not agree but I have the lens and frequently hand hold it and I don't want IS. Feel free to open fire!
> ...



Ibis


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> They could make a 1000mm/5.6 DO. That's something no one else sells. It could be a ton smaller than the Sigma 200-500/2.8 since it's *a little less aperture*, a prime, and a DO.



1000mm / 5.6 = 500mm / 2.8, iris diaphragm is the same size, front element is the same size.


----------



## Mr Bean (Dec 31, 2015)

An 800mm f4 DO version could be an interesting option. That would allow the 1.4x and 2x tele's to work with AF.


----------



## candc (Dec 31, 2015)

Mr Bean said:


> An 800mm f4 DO version could be an interesting option. That would allow the 1.4x and 2x tele's to work with AF.



The use of "do" elements make it possible to bend the light at a sharper angle and make a lens shorter overall but the diameter is the same. That is still a huge 200mm front element.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 31, 2015)

candc said:


> Mr Bean said:
> 
> 
> > An 800mm f4 DO version could be an interesting option. That would allow the 1.4x and 2x tele's to work with AF.
> ...


I have a 200mm telescope..... it is NOT hand holdable.... I can't imagine dragging a lens around of that size.....


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > They could make a 1000mm/5.6 DO. That's something no one else sells. It could be a ton smaller than the Sigma 200-500/2.8 since it's *a little less aperture*, a prime, and a DO.
> ...



But the rest of the lens isn't. Probably not even close since it's so much harder to correct for an f/2.8 lens over an f/5.6 lens and the same for a zoom versus a prime.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 31, 2015)

The Crop vs FF argument is simple for me. Crop wins because of the extra reach. I can get far more reach for far far less weight, size and money on a Crop.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 31, 2015)

Nininini said:


> The Crop vs FF argument is simple for me. Crop wins because of the extra reach. I can get far more reach for far far less weight, size and money on a Crop.



Care to show any actual images that you have shot with the same lens and same generation crop and ff cameras that actually supports your comment _"I can get far more reach.....on a Crop."_?


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 31, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > The Crop vs FF argument is simple for me. Crop wins because of the extra reach. I can get far more reach for far far less weight, size and money on a Crop.
> ...


I would love to see an example of that with the 7D2 and the 5Ds


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure, it makes sense that the lens would be smaller. My point was that stating a 1000/5.6 would have 'a little less aperture' than a 500/2.8 is just flat out wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2015)

Nininini said:


> The Crop vs FF argument is simple for me. Crop wins because of the extra reach. I can get far more reach for far far less weight, size and money on a Crop.



Glad that works for you. You really should get a m4/3 camera, better yet a superzoom P&S – the PowerShot SX60 has a 1365mm lens, much better reach and way smaller/lighter than your dSLR. 

Your free lunch comes with a cake you can have and eat, too. It's a win-win!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 31, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > The Crop vs FF argument is simple for me. Crop wins because of the extra reach. I can get far more reach for far far less weight, size and money on a Crop.
> ...


Try being a bit less nasty and a bit more helpful......

With any lens, with smaller pixels you get a higher density sampling. If everything was perfect it would mean more reach. The problem is, everything is not perfect.

First problem: The lens is not perfect. With twice the sampling density on a perfect lens, you would get twice the reach, but because of imperfections in the lens you get a lesser number. The better the lens, the closer you are to twice the reach, the worse the lens, the closer you are to one.

Second problem: Assuming the same technology, by going to twice the pixel density, you quarter the area of the pixels and that means you get less light on each one. If there is no wasted sensor area (edges of pixels, traces, etc) each pixel gets abut a quarter the light and your sensor performance drops two stops. 

Third problem: Read noise.... you would get the same read noise for big or small pixels, but the read noise of the small pixel is compared to a smaller signal and is relatively more significant.

Fourth problem: Movement and vibration. With smaller pixels, any movement blurs the light over more pixels. This can be movement of the camera or movement of the subject. You compensate with higher shutter speeds and that means compromising ISO or aperture settings and pixel quality suffers.

Crop cameras GENERALLY have smaller pixels than FF cameras, but this is not always true.

The best way to sum it up is that by going to smaller pixels you increase the number of pixels on target but the quality and the accuracy of those pixels is reduced. Your resolving power can be increased under some combinations of conditions and it can be decreased under other conditions. There is no definitive answer as the variables are too complex and vary so much on personal choices and conditions.

I have a 5D2, 7D2, and a SX-50. Personally, I find that the 5D2 out-resolves the 7D2 under poor lighting, that the 7D2 is best under good lighting, but under absolutely perfect conditions the SX-50 blows the two of them away, but that's for me and the conditions and subjects that I tend to shoot. The next person will probably get a different answer.


Size is another thing.... Realistically, there is no difference between a 7D2 and a 6D or 5D3 when it comes to size, but go to a Rebel, SL1, or an "M" camera and you are significantly lighter and more affordable.


----------



## Zv (Dec 31, 2015)

Nininini said:


> The Crop vs FF argument is simple for me. Crop wins because of the extra reach. I can get far more reach for far far less weight, size and money on a Crop.



Yeah, umm we did a whole thing on CR forum a while back about this topic and the conclusion was (for the most part) that this myth was debunked. I guess you must have missed that. Not to worry we have a crop vs FF reach heated debate about once every few months! 

You stay on here long enough and you become familiar with the old classic debates such as lack of DR and the need to push shadows 5 stops in post, clear filter or no filter on your lens and the FF vs Crop showdown! Looks like we're set for another cracker! Get the popcorn ready!


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 31, 2015)

It used to be a fairly simple equation, but now that we have 500mm+ lenses for around $1,000 and the 6D or 5D3 at deep discount, the idea that a "decent" full frame supertelephoto setup costs over $10,000 isn't quite the case anymore.
The 7D2 still has a lot of advantages but at this point whether you go crop or Full Frame is more dependant on your application than your budget.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 31, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > The Crop vs FF argument is simple for me. Crop wins because of the extra reach. I can get far more reach for far far less weight, size and money on a Crop.
> ...



Why are you telling me what I should and shouldn't get? I'm not interested in P&S, they are nowhere near capable enough for me under low light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Try being a bit less nasty and a bit more helpful......



In this case, no thanks.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 31, 2015)

Nininini said:


> The Crop vs FF argument is simple for me. Crop wins because of the extra reach. I can get far more reach for far far less weight, size and money on a Crop.



It seems your comment brought out many responses to the opposite.
But take heart, many of those that wouldn't agree with the Crop extra reach argument argued endlessly on the opposite side of the argument a few years back. It took several years but most eventually figured it out. 

You did get one point right though, you can get the Crop camera cheaper.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> But take heart, many of those that wouldn't agree with the Crop extra reach argument argued endlessly on the opposite side of the argument a few years back.



OTOH, some of us have been saying the same thing for more than a few years... 



neuroanatomist said:


> Tuggen said:
> 
> 
> > In the specific situation where you need longest possible reach higher pixel density is an advantage....There are no disadvantages with higher density.
> ...


----------



## RGF (Dec 31, 2015)

if they can make an 800 with a built-in 1.4, why not 500 and 600 with built in 1.4? Mark III. Add $3,000 to price.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2015)

Canon once made an EF 1200mm f/5.6. 

Bryan Carnathan uses it instead of an SX50?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2009-03-31_17-06-04


----------



## sanj (Dec 31, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > The Crop vs FF argument is simple for me. Crop wins because of the extra reach. I can get far more reach for far far less weight, size and money on a Crop.
> ...


----------



## Nininini (Dec 31, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > The Crop vs FF argument is simple for me. Crop wins because of the extra reach. I can get far more reach for far far less weight, size and money on a Crop.
> ...



My back can tell you the size and weight argument is right too.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2015)

Nininini said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Nininini said:
> ...



Funny that, I can't tell the difference as to whether I am carrying my 5DIII + 100-400mm II or my 7DII + 100-400mm II. My G3 X with its 24-600mm equivalent fov is definitely lighter, though. The little Canon is, actually, superb, having the best of both worlds, a Sony sensor and Canon body, glass and software. But, it can't match the two bigger boys.

There are arguments on both sides of the FF vs crop. Neuro with his 1Dx and 600/4 can definitely get better quality shots than me with my 7DII + 100-400mm II. I am too old to carry Neuro's gear but I can get some opportunistic shots he would find difficult. Ideally, I'd like to go on a hike with my kit and have a second set of a 1Dx + 600/4, carried by Neuro for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2015)

;D


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 31, 2015)

Didn't someone post comparison images between the 600f4 and SX50HS a few years ago and end up at roughly equal IQ? (per square area of sensor of course)

I was watching the SX60HS launch with great anticipation, they gave it a better buffer and burst speed but it turned out to be almost the same or worse in IQ than last generation and the current Nikon superzoom beats it quite handily.
With the AF some morrorless cameras are getting I almost expect a compact superzoom to perform reasonably well in sports and wildlife any day now, someone just has to throw all the right technology into the same body.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 31, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Canon once made an EF 1200mm f/5.6.
> 
> Bryan Carnathan uses it instead of an SX50?
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2009-03-31_17-06-04



How tall is he??


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 31, 2015)

Nininini said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Nininini said:
> ...



You must be talking about one of the Rebels because the 7D II isn't that much different in size and weight than the 5Ds R or the 5D III. Using Length x Width x Height the 7D II occupies a space of 79.81 Cubic Inches compared to the 5Ds R which occupies 82.02 Cubic Inches, a difference of only 2.2 Cubic Inches which is only 2.69%. The 7D II weighs 32.1 ounces compared to the 5Ds R at 32.8, a difference of . 7 ounces which is only 2.13%. The 5D III is only slightly more.

As for extra reach it is true that if you are in a situation which you must crop to the size of a crop body, the 7D II will give you around 15% additional reach over the 5D III. The old 7D gave a little but it required more PP to get it to that level. However compared to the 5Ds R in the same situation I have tested it and have yet to see a benefit from either body. I expected to see a slight resolution boost above the 7D II with the 5Ds R but the difference is so negligible that any method I have used so far show no appreciable difference.

The extra reach advantage only occurs when you must crop and this is usually at your longest focal length. (Again there is no "extra reach" benefit when comparing to the 5Ds and 5Ds R.) However, the extra reach benefit disappears against the 5D III when you can properly frame your subject with the FF. The benefit in IQ of a picture of the FF body when properly framed is far greater than the benefit of "extra reach" using a crop body for a the cropped photo if comparing the two side by side.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



It's very interesting what you write about the 5Ds R vs the 7DII. For the day I had a Sony A7RII, shot iso12233 charts with the 100-400mm II and 300/2.8 II with a Metabones vs the same lenses on the 7DII. To my initial disappointment, and subsequent relief, the much vaunted 42 Mpixel sensor did not out-resolve that of the 7DII using the same lenses. Oh well, until I can have Neuro in tow, the 7D II + 100-400mm II is the best for me, personally.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Didn't someone post comparison images between the 600f4 and SX50HS a few years ago and end up at roughly equal IQ? (per square area of sensor of course)
> 
> I was watching the SX60HS launch with great anticipation, they gave it a better buffer and burst speed but it turned out to be almost the same or worse in IQ than last generation and the current Nikon superzoom beats it quite handily.
> With the AF some morrorless cameras are getting I almost expect a compact superzoom to perform reasonably well in sports and wildlife any day now, someone just has to throw all the right technology into the same body.



I tested the SX60 vs the old SX50, and found the 50 better. The G3 X beats them all hollow, despite being only "600mm". Its lens is much better and, crucially, they are all diffraction limited at the longer focal lengths as it is the diameter of the Airy disk that is limiting in resolution, not the smaller pixels.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 31, 2015)

AlanF said:


> It's very interesting what you write about the 5Ds R vs the 7DII. For the day I had a Sony A7RII, shot iso12233 charts with the 100-400mm II and 300/2.8 II with a Metabones vs the same lenses on the 7DII. To my initial disappointment, and subsequent relief, the much vaunted 42 Mpixel sensor did not out-resolve that of the 7DII using the same lenses. Oh well, until I can have Neuro in tow, the 7D II + 100-400mm II is the best for me, personally.



If tweety birds and cropping are your game, there is no way I would recommend the 5Ds R for an additional $2,000. But for everything else there are better options.

I recall reading from different sources that the 5Ds R should give you 3% to 8% additional resolution over the 5Ds. Maybe it is there against the 7D II but I couldn't make it out with the methods I was using. I compared test shots I made while I had set up to do AFMA. Maybe the samples need to be more refined, or perhaps 3% is just to slight of a difference to see with my monitor and pixel peeping methods.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Ha! That's funny.

When I wrote that, I was thinking of the 1200/5.6L but I was talking about the Sigma!

Oops.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 31, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> You must be talking about one of the Rebels because the 7D II isn't that much different in size and weight than the 5Ds R or the 5D III.



APS-C.... 55-250mm STM f/4-5.6 (88-400mm equivalent) -----> 375 grams
Full Frame.... 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L II -----> 1500 grams

MASSIVE difference, the closest full frame lens is 4 times as heavy as the APS-C equivalent

(the equivalent aperture isn't the same, that's irrelevant to me under 99% of conditions)


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 31, 2015)

Nininini said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > You must be talking about one of the Rebels because the 7D II isn't that much different in size and weight than the 5Ds R or the 5D III.
> ...



Then it is no comparison, how can light gathering ever be irrelevant in photography! As has previously been stated, using that logic a G3X would be even 'better' after all it has a '600mm' lens and weighs 739 grams for the lens, camera and battery.

Or compare the 55-250 with a non L 'equivalent' of similar optical performance¹, the 70-300 IS, it weighs 630 grams.

1: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=358&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Nininini (Dec 31, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> using that logic a G3X would be even 'better' after all it has a '600mm' lens and weighs 739 grams for the lens, camera and battery



Not at all. Because there is a right camera for every condition.

Your logic is severely flawed, your argument is that more light supersedes reach, weight, size and cost.

Me recommending you buy a medium format camera, or even large format camera, without knowing under what conditions you shoot..is just as retarded as you recommending me a G3X with a small 1″ sensor without knowing what conditions I shoot in. Equivalent aperture is only a small part of the equation, once you have enough light, it's irrelevant.

There is a right sensor for every circumstance, I am shooting in lighting conditions during the day, where I don't need more light, I don't even need f/5.6, it's not even the sharpest aperture of those lenses, f/8 is. The APS-C solution offers me a far ligther and smaller set-up, for a fraction of the price.


----------



## Nininini (Dec 31, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Or compare the 55-250 with a non L 'equivalent' of similar optical performance¹, the 70-300 IS, it weighs 630 grams.



The 70-300 IS is an outdated terrible lens by today's standards, I wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy. It's a decade old for crying out loud, and it wasn't even a good lens back then.

The fact you only managed to find a terrible full frame lens that still weighs over twice the recent and much superior 55-250 STM APS-C, shows how hard it is to find a light tele for full frame. 

It also shows how flawed these arguments are that Full Frame is comparable in weight to APS-C, it's not, not in this universe.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Then it is no comparison, how can light gathering ever be irrelevant in photography!



Because you're not always gathering the maximum amount of light you could. For example, if you're regularly stopping down the 100-400L on full-frame for DOF purposes, you're not gathering more light than you could from a smaller lens on a smaller sensor because total light gathered and DOF go together in a format-independent way.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2015)

Nininini said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Or compare the 55-250 with a non L 'equivalent' of similar optical performance¹, the 70-300 IS, it weighs 630 grams.
> ...



I have a magazine cover that was shot on a 70-300IS and a Rebel XT. The printed version is very sharp and colorful. At that size, you probably wouldn't be able to tell it from a shot taken on a 300/2.8.

The 70-300IS was not terrible at all. It was quite respectable, in fact. The 75-300 (all versions) was quite a bit worse.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2015)

If you are filling most of the frame with the image and the light is good, most lenses and most cameras will give excellent results. It's when you are pushing them to extremes of making heavy crops under adverse conditions that you see the differences between a high quality wide aperture lens on a good body and a good second tier set up. That is not to decry a 50-250 on a rebel, it's just that you are more restricted on what you can do with it. Unfortunately, I am most often working at the limits and need at least 400mm on a crop and preferably 560-600mm. There are times when I would do just as well as with a 50-250 on a rebel, but for me they are not often.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 31, 2015)

Precisely why I'm opting for a 1Dx/5Ds combo for sports in the future vs my 1Dx pair. Cropping is unforgiving.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2015)

Nininini said:


> There is a right sensor for every circumstance, I am shooting in lighting conditions during the day, where I don't need more light, I don't even need f/5.6, it's not even the sharpest aperture of those lenses, f/8 is. The APS-C solution offers me a far ligther and smaller set-up, for a fraction of the price.



Makes sense – if I always shot in bright daylight with fairly close subjects that don't move very fast, APS-C with a 55-250mm might work well. But I find bright daylight generally flat and uninteresting, my subjects are generally distant (840mm, often 1200mm), and I need often shutter speeds over 1/1600 s. 

But...keep in mind you're contributing to a thread on a possible 800mm lens – for most to whom such a lens is relevant, 250mm on APS-C won't even come close to being adequate.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 31, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> But...keep in mind you're contributing to a thread on a possible 800mm lens – for most to whom such a lens is relevant, 250mm on APS-C won't even come close to being adequate.



A point that many of us (myself included) have overlooked....

A new 800mm lens, be it DO or not, will be big, heavy, and expensive.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 31, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > There is a right sensor for every circumstance, I am shooting in lighting conditions during the day, where I don't need more light, I don't even need f/5.6, it's not even the sharpest aperture of those lenses, f/8 is. The APS-C solution offers me a far ligther and smaller set-up, for a fraction of the price.
> ...



I just got the cyber Monday deal on the Sigma 150-600C for $700. That's 240-960 equivalent on my 7D II.

Yeah, it's a third of a stop slower, and if you add in full-frame geometry, it's 1 2/3 stops slower, so it's a lens you don't want to shoot in really low light compared to an 800/5.6 on full-frame, but it's still a lot of resolving power for a really good price and I'll mostly be using it in good light (airshows and such). It out-resolves my 70-200/2.8II + 2x TC III, and it out-resolves itself with the addition of a 1.4x TC demonstrating that the 7DII's small-ish pixels aren't oversampling it.

So, while the 55-250STM (a lens I also own, mostly for video) is a fantastic deal and a lot of reach for very little money, it won't touch an 800/5.6. But the 150-600s that are not available will put a crop camera in the same ballpark, for a tenth the money. Oh...and they zoom out to boot!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I just got the cyber Monday deal on the Sigma 150-600C for $700. That's 240-960 equivalent on my 7D II.



It's a 150-600 equivalent on your 7DII relative to a 5Ds in terms of "reach". The crop vs FF argument has changed radically since the introduction of high megapixel FF sensors.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 1, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> I just got the cyber Monday deal on the Sigma 150-600C for $700. That's 240-960 equivalent on my 7D II.
> 
> Yeah, it's a third of a stop slower, and if you add in full-frame geometry, it's 1 2/3 stops slower, so it's a lens you don't want to shoot in really low light compared to an 800/5.6 on full-frame, but it's still a lot of resolving power for a really good price and I'll mostly be using it in good light (airshows and such). It out-resolves my 70-200/2.8II + 2x TC III, and it out-resolves itself with the addition of a 1.4x TC demonstrating that the 7DII's small-ish pixels aren't oversampling it.
> 
> So, while the 55-250STM (a lens I also own, mostly for video) is a fantastic deal and a lot of reach for very little money, it won't touch an 800/5.6. But the 150-600s that are not available will put a crop camera in the same ballpark, for a tenth the money. Oh...and they zoom out to boot!


I guess we won't be hearing much from you for a while as you will be busy taking pictures... Have fun and don't forget to post!

BTW, I'd love to see Sigma or Tamron produce an 800F8 prime for $1000.... That would sure shake up a few people!


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 1, 2016)

Nininini said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > You must be talking about one of the Rebels because the 7D II isn't that much different in size and weight than the 5Ds R or the 5D III.
> ...



You gave an apple and oranges comparison when it comes to discussing the 800mm lens.
If weight and size matters for you then it may be a wise choice in your situation. Your bank account doesn't take a hit either. 
But if you think your getting even close to the same IQ because of the warm fuzzy "extra reach" security blanket, be aware that your blanket is wet. It will not even be close. There is a reason people spend huge amounts of cash for the big white lenses, contrary to what some would lead to believe or that it may appear on this forum it isn't for bragging rights.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 1, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I just got the cyber Monday deal on the Sigma 150-600C for $700. That's 240-960 equivalent on my 7D II.
> ...



That's true, but I don't have a 5Ds and I won't have one either. All the other Canon full-frame sensors thus far are right around 20MP, the same as my 7DII.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 1, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



It's still not equivalent to 240-960mm even relative to a 20 MP FF sensor. The Tamron and Sigma 150-600s are relatively soft on crop vs FF, which lowers their resolution relative to FF, especially at 600mm - see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 for example.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Party pooper. People want a free lunch, and think they're getting one with 'crop factor reach'. :-X


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 1, 2016)

AlanF said:


> It's still not equivalent to 240-960mm even relative to a 20 MP FF sensor. The Tamron and Sigma 150-600s are relatively soft on crop vs FF, which lowers their resolution relative to FF, especially at 600mm - see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 for example.



People need to learn the difference between contrast (which can be altered in post) and resolution (which cannot). A lower MTF doesn't mean a lower resolution, it means a lower contrast at a particular resolution.

My Sigma 150-600C resolves right at its theoretical limit. It also sharpens up a lot just 1/3 of a stop down, as TDP's example above shots.

You know how far 450km / 280 miles is? Ever shot something from that far away?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36861.msg1453979#msg1453979


----------



## TAF (Jan 1, 2016)

candc said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...




Unless I missed something (which is always a possibility), Canon has chosen not to take that route.

Which makes the product salable to Canon customers.

I'll bet it would fit in the same form-factor as a 1.4x...


----------



## candc (Jan 1, 2016)

They haven't yet but most likely will. Its the most feasible way to achieve "is" with non stabilized lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2016)

candc said:


> They haven't yet but most likely will. Its the most feasible way to achieve "is" with non stabilized lenses.



Canon has explained the benefits of lens-based IS over IBIS several times, pointing out several weaknesses of the latter. 

Of course, if Nikon can reverse course and use fluorite elements after pointing out their potential flaws, why not Canon?


----------



## candc (Jan 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > They haven't yet but most likely will. Its the most feasible way to achieve "is" with non stabilized lenses.
> ...



I agree with that myself. The lenses with stabilization built into them seems to offer more benefit than ibis for the time being but I think developing ibis which is in the early stages is the best overall solution for getting some stabilization in lenses that don't have it built in.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 1, 2016)

candc said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



How would that work for long focal lengths? Wouldn't the IBIS travel distance be prohibitive?


----------



## candc (Jan 1, 2016)

The really long lenses generally have "is" built into the lens and that is probably best. I think most people are looking for some stabilization in the shorter lenses that don't have it built in. The sony a7rii has settings up to 1000mm. I use a canon fd 80-200l with it and the image is rock solid in the viewfinder at 200. Seems to get sharp non blurred images at 1/50s or so. That would be 2 stops by most standards.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 1, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > It's still not equivalent to 240-960mm even relative to a 20 MP FF sensor. The Tamron and Sigma 150-600s are relatively soft on crop vs FF, which lowers their resolution relative to FF, especially at 600mm - see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 for example.
> ...



You can see resolution of the lens by looking at the thin converging lines on the chart from TDP, which come in at the left of the central square. The Sigma 150-600mm C on a 7D2 at f/7.1 or f/8 gives out at about number 32 on the chart, after which it can no longer resolve. A 600mm f/4 II at 840mm on a 1Ds III (which has the same fov as the 600 on crop) resolves the lines all the way to the centre square. I don't know what you mean by your Sigma 150-600C resolves right at its theoretical limit, as it clearly can't resolve on a 7DII what a very good lens can at the same field of view on a FF.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=748&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

objektivtest.se have measured the MTFs of the 150-600mm S at the resolution of an APS-C sensor, they are low at higher frequency (0.4-0.5), and this what they say:

"APS-C:
With the APS-C format, the lens delivers good sharpness at 150-200 mm and passable at 300-400 mm. But a high-resolution APS-C sensor is less forgiving than a full-frame sensor and photos taken at 500 and 600 mm may not be particularly good for drawing small and fine details, like the plumage of birds or the fur of mammals."

http://www.objektivtest.se/tester/sigma-150-600-mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-sports-test/

450km is nothing - most of us have shot the moon at 384,400 km, and then the stars that are light years away.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2016)

AlanF said:


> You can see resolution of the lens by looking at the thin converging lines on the chart from TDP, which come in at the left of the central square.
> 
> 450km is nothing - most of us have shot the moon at 384,400 km, and then the stars that are light years away.



But I can see the ISS with my lens, therefore it must have truly awesomely massively superlative resolution. Because I say so. If your views contrast with mine, you need to learn about contrast. :


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 1, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > It's still not equivalent to 240-960mm even relative to a 20 MP FF sensor. The Tamron and Sigma 150-600s are relatively soft on crop vs FF, which lowers their resolution relative to FF, especially at 600mm - see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 for example.
> ...


no..... but one evening I shot the Andromeda galaxy with a macro lens


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 1, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I can't remember where I read it, but it was a comparison of the IBIS on an Olympus 4/3 camera against the lens IS of Canon, and the claim was that the IBIS system was superior for wide angles and the IS system was superior for long lengths..... That was about 5 or 6 years ago and both IS and IBIS have improved since then....


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > You can see resolution of the lens by looking at the thin converging lines on the chart from TDP, which come in at the left of the central square.
> ...



The gap between the solar arrays is resolved, and if you do the math, you'll find that it's right at the Rayleigh limit for a lens of this size. In other words, it's resolving right at its theoretical limit.

Let me put it another way. I'm in Denver. Santa Fe New Mexico is about the same distance away. ISS is about the size of a football field. That gap is about 5 yards. So, I'm resolving about 5 yard things in Santa Fe from Denver. I think that's quite remarkable.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


Resolving 5 yards at 280 miles away is just beyond the theoretical limit by my calculations. I calculate that 2 lines 5 yards apart at 280 miles would be separated by a 600mm lens by (600x5)/(280x1760) mm = 6.1 microns (using the standard lens equation). The 7dII has 4.1 micron pixels. The theoretical limit for separation according to the Nyquist theorem is twice the pixel dimension, ie 8.2 microns.

I downloaded your photo of the ISS to check (below). There are four pairs of detectors. You are not resolving all eight of them but you are seeing each pair as a single, unresolved object. We don't know the size of the gap between each pair of vanes as they tilt to face the sun and open the gap. You are resolving the gap, which is greater than 5 yards, because of the tilt. You are not resolving the gap between individual vanes, both because it is beyond the limit and the angle of observation.


----------



## TAF (Jan 2, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I find it remarkable that using ordinary consumer products one can capture a photo such as this.

Since reciprocity applies, the folks up there can capture similar images looking down...

Imagine what they can with more advanced hardware.

What was the exposure settings you used for those photos?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 2, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


But on a more important note, given the speed that the ISS tracks across the sky, the distance, atmospheric aberrations, awkward shooting position, etc., it is a darn good job to capture that image as well as it is. Congratulations are in order.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 2, 2016)

AlanF said:


> I downloaded your photo of the ISS to check (below). There are four pairs of detectors. You are not resolving all eight of them but you are seeing each pair as a single, unresolved object. We don't know the size of the gap between each pair of vanes as they tilt to face the sun and open the gap. You are resolving the gap, which is greater than 5 yards, because of the tilt. You are not resolving the gap between individual vanes, both because it is beyond the limit and the angle of observation.



The gap between the two on one set is smaller than the Rayleigh limit, and it is resolved. The gap between the truss sections is just more than the Rayleigh limit, and it is resolved. In other words, the lens is performing as it should be.

This was not taken during docking operations when the arrays are parked at odd angles. This was taken during normal tracking when the arrays were tracking. Since I know where the sun was when this was taken and since ISSLive is back on line, I know the Beta angle during the shot and the arrays were close to parallel in Beta angle.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 7, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> We wonder if some sort of a supertelephoto zoom above 600mm would be doable and cost effective.



Considering Sigma makes a 300-800mm f5.6 zoom, this seems a little odd to wonder. Its even a pretty good lens. I've used it for Surfing photography and the range is pretty perfect. https://luminous-landscape.com/a-review-of-the-sigma-300-800mm-f5-6-zoom-lens/


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 6, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



I like to photograph birds. I thought my 70D with the 400mm f/5.6L was great. Then I got a 5D III. I don't use the 70D for birds anymore. It sucks compared to the 5D III. That's what I can see. That is all the evidence I need. I've decided if I need more reach I need more lens... not a crop sensor. Others may have a different experience. That's just my experience. For sports? 70D is okay. For birds? Nope. The IQ just is not there. Maybe the 7D II is better.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 6, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



What is always funny to me is grown men worried their camera body and lens are too heavy. The full frame example works out to less than 3.5 lbs. 

Aren't we mostly men here? My 8 year old granddaughter might complain, but guys... the setup weighs less than your clothes. Part of the gear must include extensive study with a dumbbell when not in the field. Just do some got dang curls.

Besides, comparing the STM lens to the L is hilarious. Why would one buy any crop lens unless he plans to stay crop forever? I learned that lesson the hard way. And if a man plans to stay crop forever, then why have the argument?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Clearly you don't live somewhere where you'll be severely uncomfortable or worse if outside for any length of time (say, the 15 minutes it takes me to walk between some campus buildings) unless, in addition to that well made suit and shirt, you need a long topcoat, scarf, gloves, hat, and on many days snow boots instead of (or in addition to) dress shoes.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Feb 6, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I like to photograph birds. I thought my 70D with the 400mm f/5.6L was great. Then I got a 5D III. I don't use the 70D for birds anymore. It sucks compared to the 5D III. That's what I can see. That is all the evidence I need. I've decided if I need more reach I need more lens... not a crop sensor. Others may have a different experience. That's just my experience. For sports? 70D is okay. For birds? Nope. The IQ just is not there. Maybe the 7D II is better.



I don't have any experience of the 70D but here are a couple from my first outing with my 7D2 attached to my Canon 800mm. OOPS! Jpegs - user error with new toy. The first image is 1/800 sec at F6.3 and 1600 ISO, the second is 1/1600 sec at F6.3 and 4000 ISO.
I think it is front focussing a touch - I will have to investigate.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Aren't we mostly men here? My 8 year old granddaughter might complain, but guys... the setup weighs less than your clothes. Part of the gear must include extensive study with a dumbbell when not in the field. Just do some got dang curls.



Do you strip off your clothes in order to carry your camera? Most of us carry a camera and wear clothes rather go around naked.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2016)

AlanF said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Aren't we mostly men here? My 8 year old granddaughter might complain, but guys... the setup weighs less than your clothes. Part of the gear must include extensive study with a dumbbell when not in the field. Just do some got dang curls.
> ...



Well, that's a good point!

For me, the weight of the gear really isn't an issue. I've spent so much time carrying my kids around for the past several years that camera gear seems pretty light.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 6, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> What is always funny to me is grown men worried their camera body and lens are too heavy. The full frame example works out to less than 3.5 lbs.



Sure, a young, healthy person will not have any problem with 3.5 lbs, but we all get older, and some suffer injury or disease that affects strength. And it's not just a matter of carrying the gear, but holding it steady for extended periods (depending on what you shoot). I'm fortunate that I have no such problems right now, but that will change.


----------



## dolina (Feb 7, 2016)

4 more years before this rumor becomes true.

Just in time for the 2020 Summer Olympics. Will be released before July.

Will probably come out with the 5D Mark V and the 1D X Mark III that both use CFast.

By then 256GB 3600x CFast will cost about $100. Instead of today's $675.50

SDXC UHS-II will probably be a secondary card for the 5D Mark V.

Sales of point & shoots will continue to shrink. It will be equal to mirrorless or SLR. All three will have equal sales volume. Smartphone shipments will go as high as 2.4 billion from today's 1.44 billion.

All of this will happen by the year 2020.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 7, 2016)

AlanF said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Aren't we mostly men here? My 8 year old granddaughter might complain, but guys... the setup weighs less than your clothes. Part of the gear must include extensive study with a dumbbell when not in the field. Just do some got dang curls.
> ...



I'm saying that if an extra 3.5 lbs is a problem that the weight is not the problem. Dumbbells are the answer to that problem. 3.5 pounds is less than the net weight of 4 cans of corn. If you think that is heavy then you have some problems. Better go see a doctor. 

Hikers walk around the wilderness days at a time with far more weight than that.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 7, 2016)

dilbert said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Just weigh whatever getup you wear [email protected] I wear overalls, flannel shirts, and work boots. Keep your got dang suit. I don't waste my money on such things.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 7, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I like to photograph birds. I thought my 70D with the 400mm f/5.6L was great. Then I got a 5D III. I don't use the 70D for birds anymore. It sucks compared to the 5D III. That's what I can see. That is all the evidence I need. I've decided if I need more reach I need more lens... not a crop sensor. Others may have a different experience. That's just my experience. For sports? 70D is okay. For birds? Nope. The IQ just is not there. Maybe the 7D II is better.
> ...



STM lens? I've heard great things about the 7D II. I still would not use an EFS lens on one.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Don't scare him. That much clothing would tire him out very quickly. Are we sure Dilbert is a man?


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 7, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > What is always funny to me is grown men worried their camera body and lens are too heavy. The full frame example works out to less than 3.5 lbs.
> ...



I don't think we are talking about those sweet folks here. I'm an old man who's had full thickness tears in both shoulders and had them both repaired this year. I'm walking around now with three torn tendons in my right foot including a 1 cm full thickness tear of the Achilles. 3.5 pounds is nothing to me. If there are young healthy guys here complaining about 3.5 lbs they need to put down the video game controllers and work out a little.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 7, 2016)

dilbert said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Hah! My lightweight 800fill down parka weighs more than that.....


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 7, 2016)

AlanF said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Aren't we mostly men here? My 8 year old granddaughter might complain, but guys... the setup weighs less than your clothes. Part of the gear must include extensive study with a dumbbell when not in the field. Just do some got dang curls.
> ...


It's -22C here today before windchill......I am wearing clothing that weighs considerably more than my camera


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 7, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



There are many good reasons for small and light, e.g. backpacking long distances, where every ounce counts. There also seem to be many (younger?) photographers who enjoy what is euphemistically known as "street photography," and which I think of as "poor person's paparazzo." They want to hide their top-end, full-frame, fast-AF gear, then pull it out at the last instant to grab an-embarrassing shot of an unwitting and unwilling model who has not signed any release_ a true to life representation of an ordinary person_ _who is in public and therefore fair game_.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 7, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Perhaps those who wear nice suits don't want to wrinkle them with camera straps. In some contexts that could be quite legitimate.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 8, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Stay warm Don. Don't let all the talk about 3.5 lbs being debilitating scare you off the parka. We want you around awhile


----------

