canon 300D, same as DS6041 model?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Skip M on 25 Aug 2005 21:17 "Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball(a)REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message news:nRkPe.80$hW.37(a)tor-nn1... > > "Skip M" wrote>> >> The 70-300 IS USM is decidedly non professional. Really. It's a >> replacement for the old 75-300 IS USM, which was Canon's first IS lens. >> > > The NEW 70-300 (one of the NEW 2 lenses just announced by Canon that the > poster was referring to) IS a PROFESSIONAL lense made with the > PROFESSIONAL LEVEL bodies in mind, so OF COURSE it is not EF-S. > > Take care, > Linda > You need to calm down, and read about that of which you write. According to DPReview's release of Canon's press release, "the lens is expected to appeal to serious amateur nature and sports photographers looking to achieve outstanding results while shooting hand held." NOT a pro lens, by any stretch of the imagination, Linda. Besides the above quote, it says further that it uses micro USM, or the lower on the food chain USM, that usually includes non full time manual focusing and a rotating front element. These are features that a pro would find unacceptable. The release also mentions being mounted on the 20D and 350D, nothing about being meant for the 1Ds, 1D or 5D. And did you think that emphasizing certain words would make them carry any more weight? -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
From: Skip M on 25 Aug 2005 21:23 "Zed Pobre" <zed(a)resonant.org> wrote in message news:slrndgsd9l.fha.zed(a)resonant.org... > Skip M <shadowcatcher(a)cox.net> wrote: >>> >> The 70-300 IS USM is decidedly non professional. Really. It's a >> replacement for the old 75-300 IS USM, which was Canon's first IS lens. > > The MTF charts on it are impressive, though. If that holds up in > real-world sharpness and contrast, I'll probably spend more time > waffling on whether I want to pick up the 70-300 or the 80-400 as a > replacement for my current 75-300. > > -- > Zed Pobre <zed(a)resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed(a)debian.org> > PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. > Do you mean 100-400? Canon doesn't make an 80-400, although Sigma does in Canon mount. The difference in weight alone might make the decision easier...the 70-300 weighs less than half what the 100-400 IS does, and if the price is in line with the old 75-300, which sold for under $600 when it came out, well, the line between them is pretty clear. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
From: Skip M on 25 Aug 2005 21:27 "Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball(a)REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message news:7VkPe.81$hW.22(a)tor-nn1... > > "Skip M" wrote > >> Except for the just announced 24-105 f4 L IS and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 IS >> USM, both of which are EF lenses, not EF-S. >> > > PROFESSIONAL level lenses made for Canon's PROFESSIONAL level bodies so OF > COURSE they will not be EF-S. > >> EF-S lenses won't fit on the full frame cameras, like the 1Ds/mkII and >> the also just announced 5D, so there will probably be some more non EF-S >> lenses produced in the near future. Just not super wides like the EF-S >> 10-22 >> > > Very good. You get it. Though several posters in this thread had already > stated the technical reasonal prior to your post. > > Take care, > Linda > You don't get it, though. You said most new lenses will be EF-S, not most new lenses not meant for pro use. And the 70-300 isn't meant for pro use, anyway. And Phil's site, which you have proven so fond of quoting, backs that up, by the way. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
From: Skip M on 25 Aug 2005 21:19 "Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball(a)REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message news:E9sPe.86$hW.6(a)tor-nn1... > > "Dave R knows who" wrote... >> >> >> Oh hogwash. The 70-300 is not even "L" quality. > Perhaps you should read more before continuing to spout foolishness... > > Phil knows what you don't: > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082207canonlenses.asp > > Take care, > Linda > Well, gee, since I just quoted his release, above, maybe you should go back and read it, yourself. The 70-300 is meant for serious amateurs, and it says so, right there, in the first paragraph below the image of the lens... -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
From: Skip M on 25 Aug 2005 21:25
"Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball(a)REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message news:kdsPe.88$hW.30(a)tor-nn1... > > "Dave R knows who" wrote > >> I'm getting emotional because you are dead wrong, IMO. >> > > Your unproven opinion means ziltch to me when it so greatly conflicts with > the overwhelmingly proven, and definitive opinion of Phil's: > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082207canonlenses.asp > > Take care, > Linda > You REALLY need to read what you quote, you are looking sillier by the moment. That release says the 70-300 is meant to appeal to serious amateurs. This is the third time you've quoted it, but you apparently still haven't read it. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |