Rebel T1i

[Saturn]

http://i.gizmodo.com/5182772/canon-eos-reb...ne=true&s=x

"Canon has crammed the $1500 50D's sensor and 5D-Mark-II-like 1080p video capture into an $899 entry-level Rebel. "

Of course it will probably cost $1800 when it reaches Sri Lanka, what with the 100% markup

All the same, HD sounds awesome, should be pretty cool with a good lens.. that feature alone makes this worth the price, what more can you ask for

[Pericles]

The HD vid is not an option I need, but I think I'll upgrade, coz it has several things I do like. But only once the price stabilizes, so probably late in the year, or next year.

Even the 450 was launched at $899 (with lens) but the price at agents here was 140k

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09032504canoneos500d.asp

They have released a new budget flash too, the 270EX

[MeanGreenZ28]

damn man, Camera technology is becoming as bad as computer tech. Bad as in, what's new today is old tomorrow ... bastards making me spend!!! lol

[Overdrive]

sounds good, but i'd rather save up and buy the 5d mk2!

[Kavvz]

  Overdrive said:

sounds good, but i'd rather save up and buy the 5d mk2!

Oooh good choice of Camera. But that`s a LOT of saving up man....

Edited March 26, 2009 by Kavvz

[Ripper]

  MeanGreenZ28 said:

damn man, Camera technology is becoming as bad as computer tech. Bad as in, what's new today is old tomorrow ... bastards making me spend!!! lol

dirty mofos

[Ripper]

  Overdrive said:

sounds good, but i'd rather save up and buy the 5d mk2!

full frame?

that would be my choice too once i outgrow the 50D... will take sometime though

[Pericles]

  Overdrive said:

sounds good, but i'd rather save up and buy the 5d mk2!

Even where you are, that must be like saving up to buy a car! I'm tempted by this. I'll wait for the reviews and see, but chances are, once the prices start dropping, hopefully about December, I'll sell mine and buy one of these. I'm not fully sold on upgrading to a 50D yet. Tho it depends on what else comes out by that time

[Pericles]

  Ripper said:

full frame?

that would be my choice too once i outgrow the 50D... will take sometime though

I don't think I'll be looking at full frame. Most of my applications are telephoto, so the crop sensors are more suited. I mean, right now I have a reach upto 400mm FF equiv with a $250 lens. The cheapest FF (canon) lens I can get will be the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM $1,222.87 and the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM at $1,460.00. Or I can just sell the car and buy a Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM ($5,519.98) or a Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM ($6,800.00)

Or you know, just go for the Opteka 500mm f/8 ($79.95) and live with manual apature, manual focus, etc.

[Overdrive]

you crack me up man!! yeah even here the the 5d mk2 is car money!! i will definitely buy from US this time. The best part is i dont even have to buy the kit lens as i already have the EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM. its £2k (bod only)The reviews on the mk2 are really good, alot of the mag's say that it's set the benchmark for the DSLR. Photoplus magazine ( For canon users) said that "its far more advanced thatn the 5d and and is much more of a rival, or even a successor to the industry leading 1Ds mk3. as such it amply fulfills wish lists of even the most wishful yet descerning photogaphers -amature and pro" with the same size sensor as the 1Ds mk3 21.1mp ff. 25-25600 ISO !

The verdict was

The 5D mk2

Breathtaking image quality, yet under half the price of 1Ds mk 3. there is nothing else on the maket that delivers FF benefits with such high image resolution as well as top quality video. not even the 1ds mk3, nikon D3x or sony A900 offer this. The ultra high res sensor is worth every penny. There is no camera on the market we'd rather own.

+ pro image quality with incredible ff resolution

- More expensive than most Dslr's but worth every Penny. 95%

[Kavvz]

  Pericles said:

I mean, right now I have a reach upto 400mm FF equiv with a $250 lens.

Oh? Exactly what lens do you have on?

[Ripper]

  Kavvz said:

Oh? Exactly what lens do you have on?

that would be the ef-s 55-250mm IS... Not a bad lens for the price but its no where in quality when compared to L glass of the similar zoom range...

I also have the same lens and last weekend had the chance to play with a EF 70-200mm F2.8L... And man the quality difference is instant...

i would love to own that lens if it wasn't so pricey

[Ripper]

  Pericles said:

I don't think I'll be looking at full frame. Most of my applications are telephoto, so the crop sensors are more suited. I mean, right now I have a reach upto 400mm FF equiv with a $250 lens. The cheapest FF (canon) lens I can get will be the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM $1,222.87 and the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM at $1,460.00. Or I can just sell the car and buy a Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM ($5,519.98) or a Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM ($6,800.00)

Or you know, just go for the Opteka 500mm f/8 ($79.95) and live with manual apature, manual focus, etc.

i was eyeing that opteka for a couple of weeks now...price is VERY tempting

and some pics on flickr made with this lens is also not that bad... lower f stop and all manual is the issue... But then again beggars cant be choosers :)P

[Kavvz]

  Ripper said:

that would be the ef-s 55-250mm IS... I also have the same lens

Ah, this lens business is totally confusing....So what's the difference between that and the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM Lens?

(Checked out your flickr page: Pretty nice work man; liking the pics of the Skyline quite a bit. And scotty's a total chick magnet btw...If I lived close by I'd be begging to walk the fella every now and then. Remember that thread about the 'pulling' power of sports cars or something to that effect? Well I bet you ole Scotty would have every single car on that list beat, hands down! )

Edited March 27, 2009 by Kavvz

[Ripper]

  Kavvz said:

Ah, this lens business is totally confusing....So what's the difference between that and the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM Lens?

(Checked out your flickr page: Pretty nice work man; liking the pics of the Skyline quite a bit. And scotty's a total chick magnet btw...If I lived close by I'd totally be begging to borrow the fella every now and then. Remember that thread about the 'pulling' power of sports cars or something to that effect? Well I bet you ole Scotty would have every single car on that list beat, hands down! )

oh well...my al-cheapo zoom lens is plastic...the EF series is sort of an alloy...metal let's say...

the filter element of the ef-s series lenses rotates as it's focusing... on ef lenses it doesn't

the ef lens you speak of has a USM motor...a much more quiter autofocusing... good especially if you're into macro stuff and don't wanna scare away little creatures

large apertures on the EF's supposed to give smoother images than the ef-s..

there are few things like that but even this EF lens is not from the L series...the holy grail in canon lenses IMHO

thanks for the compliments on my pics and pooch..Scott has grown quite a bit since those pics and now is on it's way to become a monster hopefully

[Kavvz]

  Ripper said:

oh well...my al-cheapo zoom lens is plastic...the EF series is sort of an alloy...metal let's say...

the filter element of the ef-s series lenses rotates as it's focusing... on ef lenses it doesn't

the ef lens you speak of has a USM motor...a much more quiter autofocusing... good especially if you're into macro stuff and don't wanna scare away little creatures

large apertures on the EF's supposed to give smoother images than the ef-s..

there are few things like that but even this EF lens is not from the L series...the holy grail in canon lenses IMHO

thanks for the compliments on my pics and pooch..Scott has grown quite a bit since those pics and now is on it's way to become a monster hopefully

Okay, but the lens you and Pericles own: The ef-s 55-250mm IS is about the same price as the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM despite the latter seeming to yeild a greater usable range of focus (okay, not really sure about the terminology there but you know what I mean right?) so when choosing between the two what would cause you to pick the former over the latter?

Edit: After a bit of googling I stumbled across the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM which led me to notice that the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM doesn't have IS. I guess that's it then? I mean, if you're using the lens without a support, getting a decent picture without IS at 300mm or there abouts is going to be tough. Since the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is roughly twice the price of the ef-s 55-250mm IS I guess it makes the latter a better choice / more cost effective for general use.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Kavvz

[Ripper]

  Kavvz said:

Okay, but the lens you and Pericles own: The ef-s 55-250mm IS is about the same price as the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM despite the latter seeming to yeild a greater usable range of focus (okay, not really sure about the terminology there but you know what I mean right?) so when choosing between the two what would cause you to pick the former over the latter?

errrr nope...

on amazon

EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM - US$ 549

EF-S 55-250mm IS - US$ 249

bet you now know why at least i have the ef-s and not the ef

[Ripper]

repeat...sorry!

Edited March 27, 2009 by Ripper

[Overdrive]

but you know ripper the 70-200 f/4L USM is much cheaper than the 70-200 f/2.8, and i think is one hell of a lens for the money. It's really good for even macro photography. I have actually got very much nicer macro shots than the 60mm 2.8!

[Kavvz]

  Ripper said:

errrr nope...

on amazon

EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM - US$ 549

EF-S 55-250mm IS - US$ 249

bet you now know why at least i have the ef-s and not the ef

Hmm strange, the site I compared on has them priced differently:

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens = CAN$ 350

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Telephoto Zoom Lens = CAN$ 270

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens =CAN$ 780

(Sorry I edited the last post on you; I was googling left, right and center trying to figuare everything out and had the 'quick edit' page open whilst doing so.)

Edited March 27, 2009 by Kavvz

[Kavvz]

  Overdrive said:

but you know ripper the 70-200 f/4L USM is much cheaper than the 70-200 f/2.8, and i think is one hell of a lens for the money.

Yeap, true:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens = CAN$ 1380

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens = CAN$ 2099

And this price difference is because of the different maximum aperture size I suppose? But then doesn't that mean that the one with the larger aperture size (the 1st lens) should be the one to cost more and not vice-versa?

[Ripper]

  Overdrive said:

but you know ripper the 70-200 f/4L USM is much cheaper than the 70-200 f/2.8, and i think is one hell of a lens for the money. It's really good for even macro photography. I have actually got very much nicer macro shots than the 60mm 2.8!

I know two pro snappers here who use these two,,,

one is Devaka Seneviratne who has the F4L non IS and the F2.8L IS is one of the workhorses of Laxmanan Nadaraja...

Gotta say considering the price gap...i too would be leaning towards the cheaper F4...but F2.8 is mighty nice...

Tried it on me 50D and it was awesome...

[Ripper]

  Kavvz said:

Yeap, true:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens = CAN$ 1380

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens = CAN$ 2099

And this price difference is because of the different maximum aperture size I suppose? But then doesn't that mean that the one with the larger aperture size (the 1st lens) should be the one to cost more and not vice-versa?

heh heh...the odd thing is... larger aperture means smaller the f stop value...

i'm guessing you are not too familiar with DSLR's yet...

so f2.8 or 1.4 etc is much larger aperture than say F4 or F8

[Pericles]

  Ripper said:

that would be the ef-s 55-250mm IS... Not a bad lens for the price but its no where in quality when compared to L glass of the similar zoom range...

I also have the same lens and last weekend had the chance to play with a EF 70-200mm F2.8L... And man the quality difference is instant...

i would love to own that lens if it wasn't so pricey

You do get what you pay for But the extra reach and IS was what moved me. I'm used to a S2 IS Equiv 432mm and IS. Besides, getting the 55-250 meant I picked up the 430EX II as well for the same price as the 70-200mm F4. And man, that has totally transformed my images. You seen my last few wedding galleries on FB?

  Ripper said:

lower f stop and all manual is the issue... But then again beggars cant be choosers :)P

Word.

  Kavvz said:

Ah, this lens business is totally confusing....So what's the difference between that and the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM Lens?

The 75-300 is a really old design that isn't well regarded by critics.

  Ripper said:

oh well...my al-cheapo zoom lens is plastic...the EF series is sort of an alloy...metal let's say...

the filter element of the ef-s series lenses rotates as it's focusing... on ef lenses it doesn't

the ef lens you speak of has a USM motor...a much more quiter autofocusing... good especially if you're into macro stuff and don't wanna scare away little creatures

large apertures on the EF's supposed to give smoother images than the ef-s..

there are few things like that but even this EF lens is not from the L series...the holy grail in canon lenses IMHO

EF-S is metal, EF is plastic, but the most important difference is that EF-S is a digital only standard, and that too, APS-C sensor specific. EF Lens can even be mounted on old Canon film SLRs. EOS film SLRs. And I don't think all EF-S front elements rotate. The EF-S 60mm Macro, for example, doesn't rotate. Or extend. And it has a USM. And USM is quieter, and more importantly, faster focusing than the normal lens. I'm not too sure about the smoother thing either.

  Kavvz said:

Okay, but the lens you and Pericles own: The ef-s 55-250mm IS is about the same price as the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM despite the latter seeming to yeild a greater usable range of focus (okay, not really sure about the terminology there but you know what I mean right?) so when choosing between the two what would cause you to pick the former over the latter?

Edit: After a bit of googling I stumbled across the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM which led me to notice that the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM doesn't have IS. I guess that's it then? I mean, if you're using the lens without a support, getting a decent picture without IS at 300mm or there abouts is going to be tough. Since the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is roughly twice the price of the ef-s 55-250mm IS I guess it makes the latter a better choice / more cost effective for general use.

The words you are looking for is "Focal Range" not range of focus. Anyway most consumer lens have issues at their limits, specially softness. There are sweet spots which let you get superbly sharp images, but it does cut into your flexibility. However, the 70-300mm IS USM is a superb lens, with image quality on par with the L range. It just not an L coz it doesn't have weather sealing. It was also on my list of considerations when picking a telephoto.

  Overdrive said:

but you know ripper the 70-200 f/4L USM is much cheaper than the 70-200 f/2.8, and i think is one hell of a lens for the money. It's really good for even macro photography. I have actually got very much nicer macro shots than the 60mm 2.8!

Yes it is. One of my friends has one. But another thing you have to consider is, it is a lot heavier than the EF-S. Which makes a difference when spending the day in the sun taking pics of motor-racing But end of day, wider 55-250 is more suited. should at least help in not having to change lens when walking down pit lane taking pics Plus the longer reach and IS.

But we'll see. If I and my XSi and 55-250 end up with better shots at Foxhill than Madmax and his 40D and 100-400mm L, you can bet he's gonna hear about it for a long time!

[Pericles]

  Kavvz said:

Yeap, true:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens = CAN$ 1380

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens = CAN$ 2099

And this price difference is because of the different maximum aperture size I suppose? But then doesn't that mean that the one with the larger aperture size (the 1st lens) should be the one to cost more and not vice-versa?

You really wanna be confused, there are 4 L grade 70-200mm lens

70-200 f4L

70-200 f4L IS

70-200 f2.8L

70-200 f2.8L IS

Thats in order of price. And the f4L is just over US$500. f4L IS and f2.8 are both around the $1000 mark, and the 2.8IS is closer to $1500.

  Ripper said:

I know two pro snappers here who use these two,,,

one is Devaka Seneviratne who has the F4L non IS and the F2.8L IS is one of the workhorses of Laxmanan Nadaraja...

Gotta say considering the price gap...i too would be leaning towards the cheaper F4...but F2.8 is mighty nice...

Tried it on me 50D and it was awesome...

Dimitri Cruz uses a 2.8L IS. Sweeeeet lens