50 1.0 re-release??!!?

photoPanda wrote in post #10142180
Given how recently the 50mm f/1.2 was released that would seem unlikely... .

QFT

MMX wrote in post #10154297
Please don´t feel offended,

No offence taken, and glad do see you can take a bit of ribbing as well. I totally agree with you. But I don't get that excited over rumors. Especially ones on the internet, in the Rumors section. Simply with it in this section it is to be taken with a grain of salt. For all we know it is already in production, only to be killed last second. He could be right, only to be wrong later. Happens all the time. And if the facts were available, it would no longer be a rumor.

Just reporting a possible slip, that might be something to look forward to.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10146924
Nope, its because Leica M glass is that good. There are very few Canon Ls that can run with Leicas medium rated glass and even fewer that chart where their (Leicas) really good glass is and the Canon lenses that can run with them are in the 4K low end + range.

You can't say Leica doesn't inflate their price because they're Leica, just like what Ferrari, Apple, Bentley, etc., etc. does.

If Canon is going to make a crazy fast prime, it would be for bragging rights. So I can't see them going 1.0 anymore. It would have to be 0.95 or even .90 to be worth it.

Tom W wrote in post #10154405
Well, there's more to f/1 than low light. The incredibly shallow depth of field has its uses.

For some reasons, people nowadays always ignore the relationship between big aperture and shallow DOF.

I know a bunch of so-called "professional" wedding photogs who said they replaced their 24-70 f/2.8 by 24-105 f/4 just because they have 5D2 that has good high-ISO performance.

They might never know why people (including me) spend extra money to buy ND to stop down f/1.2 and insist using 85L and 50L wide open!

There are also a lot of so called "professionals" that think the only way to take a picture is with shallow DOF. There are plenty of ways to be creative without making sure your backgrounds blur into a solid color.

Mark1 wrote in post #10154586
if the facts were available, it would no longer be a rumor.

Not really, for me it´s a rumor until it´s not officially announced by Canon PR/marketing department. I saw photos of the 4th generation iPhone but until Steve Jobs doesn´t hold it in his hands it is only a rumor.

You saw what was reported to be a 4th gen iPhone. There are no facts stating that it is the 4th gen. Also no facts stating that it is not it either. It could only be a test mule with 4.0 software. Even the letter that Apple sent sent requesting it back does not state that it is a 4th gen iPhone. Only a prototype.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #10154694
You can't say Leica doesn't inflate their price because they're Leica, just like what Ferrari, Apple, Bentley, etc., etc. does.

I would say that Canons Ls that run with them are also in similar price range but hey theres a waiting list on the M9 so I guess when there demand you can set the price where ever it will sell.

Apple, it aint that much more and I found it to be worth the price difference.

tkbslc wrote in post #10154747
If Canon is going to make a crazy fast prime, it would be for bragging rights. So I can't see them going 1.0 anymore. It would have to be 0.95 or even .90 to be worth it.

Canon SLRs do not support f-stops larger than f/1, according to DPReview.

toxic wrote in post #10157364
Canon SLRs do not support f-stops larger than f/1, according to DPReview.

What does that mean?

Maybe the meter can't be adjusted to be accurate is the only thing I can imagine,

....when you put an f/.95 on a Canon DLSR it still works just fine! The lens does not need the camera to be wide open. I's' always wide open unless it's a manual aperture, in which case it's always whatever you set it to.

They can't even get the 50 1.2 right.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10156812
I would say that Canons Ls that run with them are also in similar price range

Perhaps (although I haven't seen new Leicas and Canons comparably priced and am not exactly sure what your comment means), but Canon makes enough to drag down the price (even though their new lenses have been much more expensive than previous versions). Plus, the very expensive Canons are supertelephotos that Leica doesn't make (unless, I've missed Leica's 400 2.8s or greater).

Agreed, but that's the same thing Ferrari and every other ultra exclusive manufacturer does to maintain prestige. The quality of the product is there, but so too is artificial value inflation.

When I built, not bought, my desktop last June a comparable Mac was 100% more. If a statistician said, "it aint that much more," that person should be fired. I'm glad you like your Mac, but I'm sure it's because of the OS and not because of the performance, because there's little to no difference when comparing a Mac Pro and a BIY Windows machine.

I have nothing against Leica. Their S Series looks amazing and I would love to have a medium format dSLR without the size of a Hassy or Mamiya, but I don't have that kind of cash, yet. But, Leica is a (if not the) Ferrari of the photography world.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #10158310
Perhaps (although I haven't seen new Leicas and Canons comparably priced and am not exactly sure what your comment means), but Canon makes enough to drag down the price (even though their new lenses have been much more expensive than previous versions). Plus, the very expensive Canons are supertelephotos that Leica doesn't make (unless, I've missed Leica's 400 2.8s or greater).


Agreed, but that's the same thing Ferrari and every other ultra exclusive manufacturer does to maintain prestige. The quality of the product is there, but so too is artificial value inflation.


When I built, not bought, my desktop last June a comparable Mac was 100% more. If a statistician said, "it aint that much more," that person should be fired. I'm glad you like your Mac, but I'm sure it's because of the OS and not because of the performance, because there's little to no difference when comparing a Mac Pro and a BIY Windows machine.

I have nothing against Leica. Their S Series looks amazing and I would love to have a medium format dSLR without the size of a Hassy or Mamiya, but I don't have that kind of cash, yet. But, Leica is a (if not the) Ferrari of the photography world.

The M9 is actually about the same price as the 1DsMkIII when the MkIII was first released.

Actually I would say maybe Hasselblad would be the Ferrari and Leica M is really not a sports camera so really apples and oranges so if you take say the 200 2L, 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 canon then had very little that can really run with those great Leica M lenses. And Leica was cool enough to their loyal customers to design a camera that can use their great old lenses. And the fact those old lenses were so darn good that they are able to still out resolve most of the Canon and Nikon glass at comparable F/Ls.

And as far as computers go I prefer my Mac not by a little but by a lot over PC.

Well, since we're arguing semantics, the M9 certainly is "cheap" but the S2 certainly fits the Ferrari metaphor (I meant Ferrari because they're excruciatingly expensive, and also have a limited number per year as Leica is claimed to have; MF cameras would not be comparable to a supercar based on performance). Yes, Leica is "nice enough", but unless you're spend 30 large, you are getting AF which was the mainly, if not only, reason for the EF line.

You have a PC. You own a Mac. A PC = personal computer. And you never addressed why you like your Mac.