PMA 2009

[bfitzgerald]

I really hope we don't get back into the super budget SLR days of old. Dynax 300si springs to mind, just about everything ripped out you could even think of! left you with program/scene modes only...not my idea of fun. Whilst I like to bag a deal, I avoided the super cut down film bodies like the plague.

[A1000]

It all comes down to what makes more profits and will not tarnish the brand image, which is shielded by the FF models.

[bakubo]

Entry Level OVFs are pretty worthless, not as pointless as an OVF on a P&S, but still not good.

I assume you are just using some hyperbole here. The OVF in the Canon DRebel/300D I used to have and the OVF in the A100 I gave my wife are far from worthless. If they were then I must have just had amazing luck in sort of pointing them in the right general direction and getting many good photos when I used them. The KM 7D, Canon 30D, and A700 have better OVFs, but no doubt my old 35mm FSLRs were even better. Actually, sit down because I am about to shock you. My Canon A590IS digicam, which I keep in my pocket all the time, has a small OVF that only shows about 80% and I use it all the time -- very rarely using the LCD LV. I did the same with the Canon A540 I used before that and the Canon A70 I used before that. I have a good feel for what is outside the frame and I just frame very tightly and often even cut off things I want in the photo because I know pretty well what will actually be in the photo. I generally review my shot afterwards and almost always get it right. If there is no time to review and reshoot, if necessary, I frame a bit looser. Even an OVF like in the A590IS is useful and I would hate to see it eliminated. I have taken many good shots with these digicams using the OVF.

[bakubo]

The 24-105 isn't that expensive. They don't give them away, but it is well priced. It is a kit lens afterall.

Are you referring to the Canon 24-105mm f4L IS lens? That is a US$1,000 lens! It is not a kit lens, although Canon does provide it in some high-end kits (5D, 5DII). For $1k and a big, heavy L lens one expects more than a little $100 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 plastic kit lens.

[David Kilpatrick]

Wrong, sadly. The 24-105mm L is terrible. It won't cover full frame sharply and countless Canon owners will confirm that. So can I, I got one to test to find out if they were just bad photographers misusing the lens. Not so. It simply isn't sharp at the edges, and not all that good in the middle either.

David

[bakubo]

Wrong, sadly. The 24-105mm L is terrible. It won't cover full frame sharply and countless Canon owners will confirm that. So can I, I got one to test to find out if they were just bad photographers misusing the lens. Not so. It simply isn't sharp at the edges, and not all that good in the middle either.

Exactly! It doesn't perform so well, but it is not an inexpensive kit lens. If it was then one takes that into account. It is an expensive L lens though so it isn't right to give it a pass because it is just an inexpensive kit lens.

[bfitzgerald]

As luck would have it, I just got a text from a friend..and he has just taken delivery of the said Canon lens! ooops, better not mention this thread.
Anyway, I will have a look at it when I am round there next...though I suspect on his 450d, it will be satisfactory..maybe FF it wouldn't be.

[bakubo]

As luck would have it, I just got a text from a friend..and he has just taken delivery of the said Canon lens! ooops, better not mention this thread.
Anyway, I will have a look at it when I am round there next...though I suspect on his 450d, it will be satisfactory..maybe FF it wouldn't be.

Probably it will be fine. I assume people are talking about this new article:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... /50d.shtml

[PhotoTraveler]

bakubo,

Sorry, but what you say on the view finders doesn't change my statement at all. Of course there will always be people who use the OVF no matter what. Doesn't mean it makes any sense. I buy mid range and up DLSRs so I can have useable view finders, thus LV is not needed for me. But On P&S I never use the optical view finder, and use the LV, that's what works best for them. You using the optical view finder on a P&S definitely puts you in the minority.

View finders on DSLRs are becoming a big deal. When DSLRs were new, people could accept them being smaller as it was something that got wasted in an effort to get the cost to something acceptable. Now as the prices of DSLRs have got cheap, people want to see everything they lost come back, which means big view finders. Just about every new generation bumps the size up. All the high end APS bodies the next generation will probably have 100% view finders, not just the D300. And almost all FF bodies will probably be in the same boat now that Sony has put the stake in the ground that it can be done on a cheap FF body. And then of course Some companies have been making sure their is pentaprism bodies in the entry level area D80, D90, K10D, K20D. Soon as those bodies get placed next to penta mirror bodies, and a person looks through one with a big view finder then goes back to the cheaper bodies with a tunnel, people really start seeing that small view finder as a tunnel. And then it's just like P&S where people just start using the rear screen, or on a DLSR and EVF if it's there. Again, I don't like them. Just the experience of playing with an Sony R1 set that in stone more so that I don't like them. But if that camera had an OVF in it with a small sensor it would have been more awful. It would be more like looking through a 4/3rds body which no matter what oly fans try to convince themselves of have terrible view finders. And thus Oly has been the main player pushing LV. And now we have bodies like the G1 which is a template of what entry level bodies from N, C, S will look like in a few years.

On the 4/24-105L Yes, that's the lens I'm talking about, and I don't see 1000 bucks as that expensive in an era of people buying F2.8 zooms costing 1.5-2k. A grand for what is suppose to be a higher end zoom with great range is not a bad price in my book. And yes, it is very much a kit lens. It was launched with the 5D, and was target for that body as it provided an ideal lens that was much cheaper than a f2.8 lens for it. And that's how a large chunk if not the majority of canon users got it. Right now you can still buy the original canon 5D kit with the lens for only 575 dollars over just a 5D, and you can buy it with the 5DII for 800 more. It's most definitely a kit lens as that's what it was born for. Nothing says a kit lens has to be the cheapest thing out there. Just has to be sold kitted with a body by the manufacture to be a kit lens. And Canon has decided it is the FF kit lens. That's not a bad price at all. And I expect when the Sony 4/24-105G happens you will see the same thing. Probably retails for 800-1000 as a lens, but Sells as a A900 kit much cheaper.

Far as the quality of it, it's universally known to be a hit and miss lens. It's an L lens and obviously is intended to be good. Just look at the Photozone results and you will see it was well liked by them and found to be sharper than the canon 2.8/24-70 and equally to the 28-70. If you get a bum one, you probably will think it's overpriced. If you get a good one, you would think it's a good price. Not much different than the experience people have with the Sony 16-80. Just keep sending it back till you get one that is right.

[David Kilpatrick]

Re Canon 24-105mm - I run a pro magazine for wedding photographers. Many bought the 24-105mm with the full frame earlier Canon models. Very few still use it!

In fact, the Sigma 24-70mm is a preferred lens now. It's been found to be consistently better than the Canon 24-70mm (or 24-105mm). We also have Nikon users (the ratio is about 70/30 Canon to Nikon) and they generally don't stray beyond Nikon optics. But I have just tested the 24-120mm VR Nikon, and found it just as poor as the 24-105mm Canon. The difference is - Nikon said the lens would not be suitable for the D3X, not good enough - they knew already. They sent me one under protest. Canon bundled their lens with the 5D MkII and sent me one like it or not! They were really surprised when I suggested it had a poor reputation.

This says a lot about how the two UK companies interact with their pro users.

David

[PhotoTraveler]

Did you ever get a new 24-120 from nikon and if so, has that solved the problems you had?

And yes, the 24-120 is also a not good lens, and like the Canon, it also has people who find it good, and people who find it bad. But the nikon is most definitely considered bad by more people than it is good.

I think if the 4/24-105G SSM materializes come PMA and if it is good (better than the C or N), Sony will have a home run in that department.

[David Kilpatrick]

Nikon never intended to send a second lens. They knew they are all poor on full frame. I reckon Sony delayed the 24-105mm because it was not good enough. They are redesigning the lens.

David

[PhotoTraveler]

Ah, I thought the lens you had was defective, not just normal bad.

Maybe they are re-designing it, of course we don't know what it was to be. Maybe it didn't have SSM in it's first form. I think that's the running theory on the 2 zeiss wide angles, as those 2 lenses looked ready to ship at PMA 07. Much more so than some of the others ones that have come from "the case" since.

Have you ever heard much on the 4/24-105 other than what all of us have, with the fax of the back of the manual being the most real thing?

It forever seems odd they didn't have it for the launch of the A900. And the discontinuation of the old 24-105 makes it look like the new should have come in the fall too. I sorta wonder if maybe Sony just hasn't been able to get production up and going as fast as they had hoped. They started off well, but have long since slipped from their statements that all 8 mock lenses would be out in a year. It's about to become 2 years.

If it did need a re-design, maybe that's it. But I have a hard time believing they wouldn't have got it right from the start. If they are re-doing things, maybe it's more of a focus of the system issue. Like going back and adding weather seals or something of that nature. Maybe it will come out a ZA instead and needed the germans to go over it and bless it and set up all their QA stuff.

Still, it better show up real soon no matter what. As it's what is needed for the camera, and the discontinued the old one. The ZA is the only FF standard zoom they got right now, and only a limited number of folks will fork up for that. Lack of 24-105 by PMA could cause a big slip in A900 sales.

[bakubo]

Sorry, but what you say on the view finders doesn't change my statement at all. Of course there will always be people who use the OVF no matter what. Doesn't mean it makes any sense. I buy mid range and up DLSRs so I can have useable view finders, thus LV is not needed for me. But On P&S I never use the optical view finder, and use the LV, that's what works best for them. You using the optical view finder on a P&S definitely puts you in the minority.

Well, I didn't say it did change your statement. You offered your opinion. I offered my contrary one. I don't see any problem in that. I don't tell people that disagree with my opinion that their's don't make any sense though. Well, I don't know if my use of the OVF on the A590IS "definitely" puts me in the minority or not, but it probably does. Still, Canon sees fit to continue putting an OVF on this line of digicams so I suppose they aren't just being nice to lonely ol' me. It seems from what you write, such as "Doesn't mean it makes any sense" and "On P&S I never use the optical view finder, and use the LV, that's what works best for them" that you have your opinions and then you have promoted them to being what is true and right for everyone, and then seemingly get a bit ticked off that someone suggests that they see it differently. I never suggested that your opinion was not a legitimate one. Just that it wasn't universal.

On the 4/24-105L Yes, that's the lens I'm talking about, and I don't see 1000 bucks as that expensive in an era of people buying F2.8 zooms costing 1.5-2k.

Well, in your words, that probably (notice I didn't say "definitely" ) "puts you in the minority."

But, yeah good OVFs for DSLRs are good. I like them, even if they aren't so great, in the digicams I buy too.

[Greg Beetham]

It does look like the FF 24-105 lens area represents quite a challenge for designers to come up with a high quality product without any major flaws. Maybe if Sony does release one eventually that has little or no barrel distortion at the wide end and almost nil pincushion at the long end along with negligible CA, the cost of it will probably end up similar to the 24-70 f2.8 CZ ...ie. not cheap, but if you want quality you have to pay for it I guess.
Greg