Woah Canon Announces 10D Mk II for 999, Drebel pricedrop 499

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Hugo Drax, Jan 29, 2004.

  1. Hugo Drax

    Hugo Drax Guest

    Hugo Drax, Jan 29, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Hugo Drax

    ThomasH Guest


    Not Found
    The requested URL /PMA/10dmk2.html was not found on this server.

    Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use
    an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
    Apache/1.3.9 Server at www.canoneos.com Port 80
    ThomasH, Jan 29, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Hugo Drax

    Searching_ut Guest

    Haven't seen anything on that yet. DPreview has information on the new 1D Mk
    II however, 8 meg camera with all the whistles and bells.

    For what it's worth

    Searching_ut, Jan 29, 2004
  4. Colm Gallagher, Jan 29, 2004
  5. Hugo Drax

    Dave Oddie Guest

    A 1.3x sized sensor? So you have just spent a bucketload on glass to match the
    1.6x multiplier of the 10D and the upgrade effectively changes your entire lens
    outfit into something different?

    That 50mm f1.8 that worked as a 80mm on a 10D which everyone raves about
    suddenly becomes a 65mm lens (i.e. just about useless).

    This is why its a good idea to decide on a senor size and to stick to it as
    Olympus have done with 4/3 and Nikon appear to have done with their 1.5x

    For that reason I can't see a 1.3x sensor giing into a 10D Mk II.

    Canon should stick to full frame at the top end and 1.6x everywhere else then
    users know where they stand on the lens front.

    Dave Oddie, Jan 29, 2004
  6. Hugo Drax

    Mike Guest

    mark 2. I saw something somewhere. that there are extra buttons on the
    updated 10d.
    It has the same size chip as the mark one.

    Could someone please tell me where the info is on the mark 2 what states its
    a mark 2.
    TIA MikeS
    Mike, Jan 29, 2004

  7. I would have to totally disagree with that opinion!

    I would agree that some standardization is a great idea, I don't think
    the technology is mature enough yet to make that decision.
    Joseph Meehan, Jan 29, 2004
  8. Hugo Drax

    Mark B. Guest

    Why is that useless? It's a good focal length for portraits.
    It's the same size that was in the first 1D, so it's not like it's a new
    sensor size for Canon.
    Nothing wrong with more choices. 1.3x is a good balance between losing on
    the wide end and gaining on the tele end. Besides, it's priced out of the
    range of most amateurs.

    Mark B., Jan 29, 2004
  9. Hugo Drax

    Chris Brown Guest

    And you can't crop in Photoshop because?
    Chris Brown, Jan 29, 2004
  10. Hugo Drax

    Dave Oddie Guest

    With respect, no it isn't. A portrait lensis traditionally either 85mm or

    65mm is not going to give you the flattering perspective of the short tele

    If 65mm was a "good" focal length for anything they would have been around for
    years in full frame 35mm film photography and they are conspicuous by their
    That does not alter the fact standardisation is a good thing.
    1.3 might be better than 1.6 but whatever the merits of cropping factors if
    they change from one version of the camera to the next that is not a good thing

    If you set out to buy a dSLR outfit today surely you would look at the lens
    options and pick a set of lenses that work as you want with the sensor in the

    So if you had already done that for your 1.6x camera it is going to be a pain
    if your carefully chosen lenses are now not working as you once wanted when you
    built the outfit if you upgrade the body.

    Surely it would be nice to know your lens was going to work the same way on
    future Canon bodies as it does now.

    Dave Oddie, Jan 29, 2004
  11. Hugo Drax

    Dave Oddie Guest

    That is no argument. If it were all you would only need one lens. The widest
    lens going and you could just crop the middle out of the image !!!

    Dave Oddie, Jan 29, 2004
  12. Hugo Drax

    Chris Brown Guest

    Hardly - there's the small matter of not having any pixels left. However, a
    crop to a 10D field of view will still give you around 5 million pixels to
    play with - more than enough to make a good portrait, and for other stuff
    the 65mm equivalent is closer to the 50mm "standard lens" that these lenses
    were originally designed as.

    You're perfectly free to take the view that reducing the crop factor is a
    "bad thing", but I suspect you'll find yourself in the minority. If this
    "10D Mk 2" rumour is true, then most people will regard it as a significant
    step forward, and the change to the 1.3 factor at the "amateur level" will
    have wrong-footed poor Nikon again.

    Of course, all we have so far is a dead-link.
    Chris Brown, Jan 29, 2004

  13. It doesn't change the "whole outfit" -- just the extremes.

    I can't see how approaching full frame (ie., a focal length
    multiplier closer to 1) is anything other than a good thing.

    The main gripe up to now has been the dearth of true
    wide angle lenses to properly cover the smaller sensors.

    Anyone designing a lens collection around a 1.6
    focal length multiplier is being foolish.

    rafe b.
    Raphael Bustin, Jan 29, 2004
  14. Hugo Drax

    JIM Guest

    Or that there is much difference between a 65mm v/s 80mm........Some 35mm
    film shooters use an 85mm as the standard lens of choice over the 50mm due
    to the little difference between those two numbers - +/- 15mm isn't changing
    the perspective enough to notice.

    JIM, Jan 29, 2004
  15. Hugo Drax

    JIM Guest

    This one works: http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos1dm2/index.html
    Couln't find a price though............wouldn't be interested anyway, until
    they get rid of that multiplication thing-a-ma-jig on something less that
    that $8K monister, anyhoo;)

    JIM, Jan 29, 2004
  16. There are 58s, and there are 75s. And quite a few zooms either begin
    or end at 70. 65 is a perfectly reasaonble number.

    I find at this point that I have dense enough coverage throughout a
    wide range of focal lengths that minor changes in sensor size won't
    discommode me. And I'd like better wide-end support, of course.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 29, 2004
  17. Hugo Drax

    George Guest

    Does kinda change the thinking a bit... You could take two zoom lenses on a
    trip w/three bodies having 1.0x, 1.3x, and 1.6x multipliers and have quite a
    "lens assortment" available to you. Of course, using this logic, it might
    be desirable to stick a 2.0x or 3.0x sensor in some body in your
    lineup...it'd be cheaper yet and your marketing department could promote it
    as a competitive advantage.

    (But, I still want 1.0x multipliers!) As for the technology not being
    mature enough, I think it is more that marketing departments aren't mature
    enough...they know if they hold out for 1.0x sensors, costs would be up for
    awhile and business would shift in the interim until the technology to make
    cost effective 1.0x sensors is more fully developed.
    George, Jan 29, 2004
  18. Hugo Drax

    George Guest

    Sounds like the solution when we've got Gigapixel sensors.
    George, Jan 29, 2004
  19. Hugo Drax

    DJ Guest

    How many angels will fit on the head of a pin?

    Come on guys, get out and take some pictures!
    DJ, Jan 29, 2004
  20. Hugo Drax

    Chris Brown Guest

    That's about the *1* D Mark 2. This thread is about a supposed *10* D Mark
    2. There was a link posted in the original post which doesn't point to a
    real page.
    Chris Brown, Jan 29, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.