Digital Rebel XT/350D

In article ,
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

In article ,
Mark Roberts wrote:

Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article ,
says...
Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US)
dollars.
No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.

According to dPreview.com, it's introduced at the same price the Digital
Rebel was. $899 body, $999 kit.

"Uh-oh" say the other manufacturers. Uh-oh indeed.

I suspect at this price it will have the same "plastic cheeseball"
construction as the Rebel-D?
I tried out a Rebel-D and thought it was ghastly. Couldn't imagine
anyone buying one. Then again, there's lots of ghastly things that sell
very well. Ever heard a Britney Spears CD? ;-)

My 300D has gone on many rough trips without damage. Just some minor
scratches on the corners.

Maybe you'd like a lead weight in your camera so it feels more "real" to
you?

This made me giggle.

Darrell dev/null wrote:

Mind you Canon does have several existing, excellent macro lenses
that offer 1:1 (and the 65mm that does 5:1). This new lens being
a EF-S means you can't swap it over to your Elan for film.

Exactly. Which brings up my question.

Why would anybody buy this lens?

The 50/2.5 macro is cheaper, weighs less, and gets a 4.4 rating
from Photodo.com (can't do much better than that).

It's the difference between a (crop equiv.) 80mm and 96mm lens,
one of which works with old film cameras.

Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals, or a
100-300/5.6 L with USM and ring (not trombone!) zoom, or ...

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message ...
Darrell dev/null wrote:

Mind you Canon does have several existing, excellent macro lenses
that offer 1:1 (and the 65mm that does 5:1). This new lens being
a EF-S means you can't swap it over to your Elan for film.

Exactly. Which brings up my question.

Why would anybody buy this lens?

The 50/2.5 macro is cheaper, weighs less, and gets a 4.4 rating
from Photodo.com (can't do much better than that).

It's the difference between a (crop equiv.) 80mm and 96mm lens,
one of which works with old film cameras.

Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals, or a
100-300/5.6 L with USM and ring (not trombone!) zoom, or ...


Well, there may be that the 60mm is shaper at the edges visible to the
sensor, or some other variable that we, collectively, are unaware of, and
will be until there are subjective tests out there.
But I will agree that Canon needs to get of their corporate butts and get
some fast zoom glass designed for the 1.6 sensor, be it EF or EF-S. Oly has
stolen a march on a company that seems to drive itself to be the first to
market, even at the expense of a little development time. Those f2.0 zooms
from Oly need an answer, now!

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

The message
from Bill Tuthill contains these words:

Darrell dev/null wrote:

Mind you Canon does have several existing, excellent macro lenses
that offer 1:1 (and the 65mm that does 5:1). This new lens being
a EF-S means you can't swap it over to your Elan for film.

Exactly. Which brings up my question.

Why would anybody buy this lens?

Smoother out of focus with more iris blades compared with 50/2.5
Faster focus with ring USM?
Optimized coatings for digital?
I agree the price is too high.

The 50/2.5 macro is cheaper, weighs less, and gets a 4.4 rating
from Photodo.com (can't do much better than that).

But 1:2 mag. not 1:1, but bargain price.

It's the difference between a (crop equiv.) 80mm and 96mm lens,
one of which works with old film cameras.

Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals, or a
100-300/5.6 L with USM and ring (not trombone!) zoom, or ...

Deryck

"deryck lant" wrote in message
...
The message
from Bill Tuthill contains these words:

Darrell dev/null wrote:


Smoother out of focus with more iris blades compared with 50/2.5
Faster focus with ring USM?
Optimized coatings for digital?
I agree the price is too high.

The 50/2.5 macro is cheaper, weighs less, and gets a 4.4 rating
from Photodo.com (can't do much better than that).

But 1:2 mag. not 1:1, but bargain price.

It's the difference between a (crop equiv.) 80mm and 96mm lens,
one of which works with old film cameras.

Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals, or a
100-300/5.6 L with USM and ring (not trombone!) zoom, or ...

Deryck

Where are you guys finding a price? I haven't been able to spot one...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Hehe ... same here ;-)

Steve Cutchen wrote:
In article ,
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:


In article ,
Mark Roberts wrote:


Brian C. Baird wrote:


In article ,
says...

Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US)
dollars.
No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.

According to dPreview.com, it's introduced at the same price the Digital
Rebel was. $899 body, $999 kit.

"Uh-oh" say the other manufacturers. Uh-oh indeed.

I suspect at this price it will have the same "plastic cheeseball"
construction as the Rebel-D?
I tried out a Rebel-D and thought it was ghastly. Couldn't imagine
anyone buying one. Then again, there's lots of ghastly things that sell
very well. Ever heard a Britney Spears CD? ;-)

My 300D has gone on many rough trips without damage. Just some minor
scratches on the corners.

Maybe you'd like a lead weight in your camera so it feels more "real" to
you?


This made me giggle.

I remember the new Ford Pinto... with 'road-hugging weight'

In article , be_****ed
wrote:

Hehe ... same here ;-)

Steve Cutchen wrote:
In article ,
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:


In article ,
Mark Roberts wrote:


Brian C. Baird wrote:


In article ,
says...

Im going to guess they will price this camera at two thousand (US)
dollars.
No real reason for this, I just dont see it at $999.

According to dPreview.com, it's introduced at the same price the Digital
Rebel was. $899 body, $999 kit.

"Uh-oh" say the other manufacturers. Uh-oh indeed.

I suspect at this price it will have the same "plastic cheeseball"
construction as the Rebel-D?
I tried out a Rebel-D and thought it was ghastly. Couldn't imagine
anyone buying one. Then again, there's lots of ghastly things that sell
very well. Ever heard a Britney Spears CD? ;-)

My 300D has gone on many rough trips without damage. Just some minor
scratches on the corners.

Maybe you'd like a lead weight in your camera so it feels more "real" to
you?


This made me giggle.

The message IjvRd.32143$xt.5100@fed1read07
from "Skip M" contains these words:

"deryck lant" wrote in message
...
The message
from Bill Tuthill contains these words:

Darrell dev/null wrote:


Smoother out of focus with more iris blades compared with 50/2.5
Faster focus with ring USM?
Optimized coatings for digital?
I agree the price is too high.

The 50/2.5 macro is cheaper, weighs less, and gets a 4.4 rating
from Photodo.com (can't do much better than that).

But 1:2 mag. not 1:1, but bargain price.

It's the difference between a (crop equiv.) 80mm and 96mm lens,
one of which works with old film cameras.

Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals, or a
100-300/5.6 L with USM and ring (not trombone!) zoom, or ...

Deryck

Where are you guys finding a price? I haven't been able to spot one...

I think I saw 450 US dollars mentioned on one of the forums, of coarse
it may not be true.

Deryck

Hi Skip,

Skip M wrote:
Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals

There is a 17-55/2.8, although with a F-Mount.


But I will agree that Canon needs to get of their corporate butts and
get
some fast zoom glass designed for the 1.6 sensor, be it EF or EF-S.
Oly has
stolen a march on a company that seems to drive itself to be the
first to
market, even at the expense of a little development time. Those f2.0
zooms
from Oly need an answer, now!

Well, the answer is already here. A 14-35mm 1:2 on the 4/3 system has
the same abolute opening (e.g. the same light capuring capacity), the
same field of view and the same depth-of-field as a 21-52 1:2.8 on a
APS size sensor or a 28-70 1:4 on a 24x35mm sensor.

For the 35-100 1:2 of 4/3 this is 52-150 1:2.8 on APS and 70-300 1:4 on
24x25.

Regards

Benedikt

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Skip,

Skip M wrote:
Seems like Canon engineers ought to be designing something useful,
like a 17-55/2.8 EFS lens for wedding professionals

There is a 17-55/2.8, although with a F-Mount.


But I will agree that Canon needs to get of their corporate butts and
get
some fast zoom glass designed for the 1.6 sensor, be it EF or EF-S.
Oly has
stolen a march on a company that seems to drive itself to be the
first to
market, even at the expense of a little development time. Those f2.0
zooms
from Oly need an answer, now!

Well, the answer is already here. A 14-35mm 1:2 on the 4/3 system has
the same abolute opening (e.g. the same light capuring capacity), the
same field of view and the same depth-of-field as a 21-52 1:2.8 on a
APS size sensor or a 28-70 1:4 on a 24x35mm sensor.

For the 35-100 1:2 of 4/3 this is 52-150 1:2.8 on APS and 70-300 1:4 on
24x25.

Regards

Benedikt

And Canon makes what lenses that fit those descriptions? True, they make a
24-70 f2.8, but that isn't the same, relative to a 1.6 sensor. There is no
f2.8 lens wider than that, and none in the "52-150" range. And while the
physical aperture may be the same, the amount of light hitting the sensor is
different. F2 is f2, f2.8 is f2.8.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com