7d Announced with specs

KenjiS wrote in post #8663413
its an 11-16, but this man is correct

Unless of course you need say, a 24 f/1.4 or something, then yes you're SOL, but for people who need such a thing thats what the 5D is for

Canon needs to come out with at 15mm f/1.4 lens. I think they might because the 7D has pushed the crop camera nearer to the pro line.
If they did and it was $2,000 or less and a L class I would buy one in a heartbeat.

New Hobby wrote in post #8663533
Canon needs to come out with at 15mm f/1.4 lens. I think they might because the 7D has pushed the crop camera nearer to the pro line.
If they did and it was $2,000 or less and a L class I would buy one in a heartbeat.

Don't forget to budget for the wheelbarrow to cart that lens around. And add another thousand, maybe 2, to the price. See existing 14mm f/2.8 for reasons why on both issues.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #8663557
Don't forget to budget for the wheelbarrow to cart that lens around. And add another thousand, maybe 2, to the price. See existing 14mm f/2.8 for reasons why on both issues.

You know someone sat there and said "Its impossible to make a 15-85, it would be HUGE heavy and rediculously expensive" when i suggested Canon would make such a lens

Low and behold, THEY DID and its none of those things...

a 15mm f/1.4 lens for APS-C would likely not be that large, and it would still take front filters most likely

The reason i do not see Canon doing it is purely just appeal..

I would however see them start to supplement the inexpensive primes with EF-S equivalents, ie, the 24/28/35mm trio...

Something like a 15mm f/2.8 would be a good lens, Small, compact, quick, and likely VERY sharp corner to corner with excellent flare resistance, Couple it with a 35mm f/1.8 and a 22mm f/2 and you'd have a pretty neat little prime setup

KenjiS wrote in post #8663720
You know someone sat there and said "Its impossible to make a 15-85, it would be HUGE heavy and rediculously expensive" when i suggested Canon would make such a lens

Low and behold, THEY DID and its none of those things...

Somebody really said that? I could've told you they were wrong ahead of time There was already a 17-85, so 15-85 with similar apertures wasn't much of a stretch, and there really needed to be an APS-C zoom lens with good range starting at 24mm equivalent so it made lots of sense. Now price-wise... $800 for an f/3.5 - f/5.6 zoom? Ouch. MSRP, but still.

I'm not an expert in lens design, but I'm just gonna go ahead and say you're wrong about that. Call it a hunch. 15mm f/1.4 would be quite large, even with mere APS-C coverage.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #8664049
Somebody really said that? I could've told you they were wrong ahead of time There was already a 17-85, so 15-85 with similar apertures wasn't much of a stretch, and there really needed to be an APS-C zoom lens with good range starting at 24mm equivalent so it made lots of sense. Now price-wise... $800 for an f/3.5 - f/5.6 zoom? Ouch. MSRP, but still.

Eh look at the current prices, its still a good $300 less than the other "pro-class" EF-S zoom, the 17-55...and i think that variable aperture is fine for what its intended for..

The Nikon 16-85 is $685 at Amazon right now with a normal price of $789[and I remember it was selling for this a few months ago, i believe Nikon is running a special], the Sony 16-80 Carl Zeiss is $750, the Olympus 12-60 SWM is $900

$800 for the Canon at launch "seems" high but its really in line with the competition...Especial​ly if you stop to remember there are NO Sigma, Tokina or Tamron lenses offering this range and capability at all...I think the shock comes from that fact most Canon shooters do full frame around these parts, or they think in terms of "Crop = Cheap **** for Noobies" and that -every- lens above $500 must be constant aperture and have a red ring on it

Maybe..im really not sure, the only 15mm APS-C prime i know about is the Pentax one..and that one is pretty questionable in its utility [Its only f/4...and actually not much better than a zoom]

KenjiS wrote in post #8662589
Which laptop did you end up getting? I havnt seen THAT many with the mobile quads...

Alienware M17x. I was looking for something with lots of power for Lightroom and, after a bit of research, I realised that them gamers knew a thing ot two about high-spec machines. All I didn't need was the top-end graphics cards. Not cheap, but I thought it was worth it if were to be spending several hours a day using it.

KenjiS wrote in post #8662589
Which laptop did you end up getting? I havnt seen THAT many with the mobile quads...

I got a thinkpad W700 recently, it's big but aimed at photographers

It's got raid0 which makes things rather fast, my first upgrade will probably be raid0 SSD.

The quad core will probably be of more use working with 7D HD Video, not really needed for lightroom imo, I've seen a W500 with SSD working and it zips through files.

In any event this is the first laptop I've ever owned which feels as snappy as my gaming PC at home

Sager has a core i7 notebook out starting at 2200, not bad at all if you ask me. This is probably my next purchase. http://www.powernotebo​oks.com/configure.php?​special=654

jianghai_ho wrote in post #8663341
I think it's an excellent camera for the price, but I don't care for the 7D at all. Underwhelming specs + loss of wide aperture wide angles == something that I don't care about. Unless we get some sort of 11-22 2.8 or better, that is.

Underwhelming specs? If you perfer FF and like going super wide, then I can see your point. But the specs are awesome, even some 5DII owners are saying the 7D specs are what they wanted in the 5DII except for the cropped sensor.

Really unless you are ready to step up to the 1D, what else has better specs, at least from Canon?

KenjiS wrote in post #8663720
a 15mm f/1.4 lens for APS-C would likely not be that large, and it would still take front filters most likely

The reason i do not see Canon doing it is purely just appeal..

Maybe Sigma will jump the gun and make a 15mm f/1.4 for APC-S, kinda like their nice inexpensive 30mm f/1.4. Althought I think it might be bigger, who knows.

GarryF wrote in post #8664643
It's got raid0 which makes things rather fast, my first upgrade will probably be raid0 SSD.

I'm not sure if the slight increase in speed you get from having raid0 SSDs is worth the extra cost and the lower capacity. That's why I decided to have an SSD boot disk. Vista, Program Files, Lightroom Catalog and working images are the things I want to be able to access at high speed - so they're on the SSD. Once images are processed I move them over to the HDD - where I keep all the data that I don't need to access at high-speed.

I get good performance where it's needed and lots of storage where it's not.

GarryF wrote in post #8664643
The quad core will probably be of more use working with 7D HD Video, not really needed for lightroom imo

Doing a lot of exports from LR really shows the advantages of the quad-core. LR uses all four cores at 100% when it's doing its stuff.

hollis_f wrote in post #8664926
Doing a lot of exports from LR really shows the advantages of the quad-core. LR uses all four cores at 100% when it's doing its stuff.

I build my quad core PC this summer, a nice upgrade from my old AMD Athlon 3000+ . I shoot RAW all the time now, since it can pump out LR exports about 1 per second (I think my hard drives are slowing me down if anything). And yes for the small small price difference between the dual core w/ faster clock or a slightly slower quad, I chose the quad since I'm more of a multitasker and not a gamer.

DStanic wrote in post #8664935
I build my quad core PC this summer, a nice upgrade from my old AMD Athlon 3000+ . I shoot RAW all the time now, since it can pump out LR exports about 1 per second (I think my hard drives are slowing me down if anything). And yes for the small small price difference between the dual core w/ faster clock or a slightly slower quad, I chose the quad since I'm more of a multitasker and not a gamer.

I agree, I use to game but not anymore. Currently Im running;

Intel Q2Quad 9550 2.83ghz (oc'd to 3.2 on stock voltage)
8GB DDR2 PC2-6400 Ram (oc'd at 850mhz w/ 5-5-5-15 timings)

I wanted to go a dual SAD HDD route in a raid0 but couldnt justify the cost, so i went with dual WD 640gb 32MB Cache HDDs in a RAID0 and ShortStacked to 500GB, My HDD speeds hit between 195-220mb/s READ/WRITE.

Then I have have two 320GB HDDs Mirrored in a RAID1.

hollis_f wrote in post #8664926
Doing a lot of exports from LR really shows the advantages of the quad-core. LR uses all four cores at 100% when it's doing its stuff.

Which quad-core notebook are you considering? I will need one too soon?

butterfly2937 wrote in post #8666268
Which quad-core notebook are you considering? I will need one too soon?

See post #1027