« Announcement: T.O.P. Consulting Services | Main | ZE: Zeiss Lenses in Native Canon EF Mount »

Sunday, 14 September 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What does that equate to in a full 24x36mm format? If my maths correct it's pretty spectacular and at a price point less than $1500 to boot..........

You want to see image quality that sucks (at 100%), check out my film scans and what's $1500 worth, 150 rolls of film ;-)

Nice job Canon!

And even at ISO 12800 after a quick run through Neat Image with default settings and then given a bit of advanced sharpening in picture window pro. What will the 5D MkII produce?

Borrowed a second hand 5D for a wedding last Saturday- blown away by the quality compared to my trusty 20D and 30D using 24-105-seemed like the perfect wedding combo - I was just about to plonk a deposit down on it, and now you've thrown me completely! Will a new 50D last longer than a second-hand 5D with 30K shots on it???? Will live view be useful? will sensor dust supression be worth it? Is the Pope a Catholic? Darn you Mike J- you've thrown me into complete chaos!

Wow! I have tried to stay away from the pixel peeping crowd and this example gives a great visual as to why. Best lesson of the day in two images. Thanks

The 50D seems to be another winner from Canon. Regarding Mike Peters' backhanded comment about the EF28-135: I am never surprised to see people bash this lens while, at the same time, they display or point to an image that looks like it was taken with a very good lens. IMO, the 28-135 is not just good value for the money, it is a very capable optic.

Cheers! Jay

Jay, I'm with you on the 28-135. It's great. Mike was dissing the 28-105, but I'd guess he feels the same toward the 28-135 given it's in the same price class. Like you, I find it to be a capable performer, and it's helped me make a lot of wonderful photos.

And man, that 50D looks nice...I still love the 40D, though.

Contrary to Mike Peters, that 28-105 is one of the few gems in Canons consumer line and also the cheapest ring-type USM lens Canon makes, it's the slower f4-5.6 version that is the dog.

Silly rabbit, it's not the pixels that make this image suck, it's the composition! What lens would improve that? ;)

I'd rather have a full-frame 5D than any crop factor camera any day of the week.

Obviously, I let my poor reading and comprehension skills come to the fore on that one. Wrong lens notwithstanding, the sentiment is the same.


Cheers! Jay

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007