Upgraded to this lens from the Canon 75-300 III, mainly for the stabiliser and better image quality.
Optical quality: 3.5/5
Build quality: 3/5
Ergonomics: 4/5
Value: 4.5/5
Update: I forgot to mention, the vignetting problem can be reduced if your camera supports peripheral illumination correction (e.g. 500D, 50D, 7D). That function will ensure even illumination across the image.
Showing posts with label Canon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canon. Show all posts
Monday, January 18, 2010
Friday, January 1, 2010
Canon 17-55mm Quick Look
[If you have no interest in watching boring equipment reviews, do me a favour by skipping this video, thanks.]
I figured talking was easier than typing, hence a video.
I just shot Nat and Charmaine's wedding today, and put this rented lens to the test. I share my thoughts on using this lens for events coverage.
I figured talking was easier than typing, hence a video.
I just shot Nat and Charmaine's wedding today, and put this rented lens to the test. I share my thoughts on using this lens for events coverage.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Canon 10-22mm mini review
Church camp ended today! Being camp photographer and shooting 3.5 days non-stop is surely tiring, but once again I'm ever thankful to serve Him with whatever skills I have. I initially thought the camp would be boring and kiddish, but no no it was a meaningful and enjoyable time, and a refreshing encounter.
Throughout the camp I put my new Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM lens to the test. I've not used it extensively enough to know everything about it, so keep in mind this review is sort of a first impressions kinda thing.
If you're into MTF charts and what not, then I suggest heading over to the Luminous Landscape. My review is based on actual usage of this lens.
Firstly, this lens is an EF-S lens, so it will only work with Canon cropped bodies, and not with full-frame (FF) cameras like the 5D mark 2. I use this lens on the Canon 500D. Factoring in the 1.6X crop factor, the equivalent focal length is 16-35mm, which goes from ultra wide angle (UWA) to wide angle. Thus if you're thinking of going FF later, you might want to avoid this lens.
If you've used the Canon EF-S 17-85 or EF-S 17-55 lenses, you'd immediately feel at home using the EF-S 10-22. These lenses are very identical in terms of build quality, operation and design. The first thing I noticed about the 10-22 is its light weight and compact size. It is lighter than both the 17-85 and 17-55, and marginally shorter than the 17-85. The filter thread size is 77mm, which is the same size as most of Canon's pro lenses. I could carry this lens the whole day without complain.
In terms of build quality, it is very good. It sports a metal mount, a distance scale, full-time manual focusing (FTMF), and internal zooming. That means the lens does not extend when zooming (but the front element shifts in and out while zooming). The build quality, is however, not as good as the "L" series. That said, this lens is sturdy and strong enough for daily use, and should be more than acceptable for many photographers. The focusing mechanism of the lens is also very good. Focus is fast and quiet thanks to the ultrasonic motor. The minimum focusing distance is also really close, at 24cm. Again, if you've used the 17-85, the focusing speed and accuracy is almost identical, and both very good.
Now to the optical quality of the 10-22. This is where the lens really shines. Although it does not have the "L" designation, it is an optically excellent lens. I've tried shooting wide open during camp in indoor lighting conditions, and got very very sharp photos. Generally speaking, this lens was designed to perform well wide open. Stopping down does improves border sharpness, while centre sharpness doesn't seem to visibly improve at all. I was shooting at around f5.6 during the camp with flash, and at that aperture the entire frame is decently sharp as long as it's within the depth-of-field. If you don't get sharp photos with the 10-22, its likely due to mis-focus or long shutter speeds as opposed to lens sharpness issues.
Distortion on the 10-22 is also very well managed. In real-world usage it is not an issue at all. However, lens test do show a little bit of barrel distortion at 10mm. At 22mm, it is distortion-free.
If there is something negative about the 10-22's image quality, that has to be chromatic aberration (CA), or purple fringing. Generally, CA is well-managed for a UWA. It is within acceptable limits, but it is noticeably there when viewed at 100% magnification. It is more pronounced when shooting in high-contrast lighting, and less so when shooting indoors. However, if you are a photographer and not a pixel-peeper, then I can say CA is a minor issue, and can be corrected in post.
Other than that, it seems to me that the 10-22 is an optically perfect lens. It is surely not "L" build quality, but optically, I dare say it is. I wouldn't hesitate to say this is a professional lens when it comes to the images it produces.
Lastly, how does the 10-22 compare with other UWAs on the market? So far, I've used the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and so I'll make a few quick comparisons.
Of these 3 UWAs, the Sigma 10-20 is the least impressive. It is the least sharp wide open, and only works well at f8 onwards. If I have to choose one UWA specifically for events coverage, it will still be the Canon 10-22. The Tokina is also a very good lens, but the main problem is the limited zoom range. I would prefer to have the more versatile range of the Canon than the fast 2.8 aperture of the Tokina.
To conclude, I do not regret getting the Canon 10-22mm. If you shoot Canon and want a UWA, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this lens to you. I love the super wide 10mm view and the unique effect it gives, and in cramped shooting situations this lens will help you get everything in.
However, apart from events coverage, another application would be in landscape/architecture photography. In fact this was the main reason why I purchased it. Will shoot some landscapes and share my experiences in the coming weeks. But for now, this lens is highly, highly recommended, as long as you don't intend to go FF in future!
Throughout the camp I put my new Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM lens to the test. I've not used it extensively enough to know everything about it, so keep in mind this review is sort of a first impressions kinda thing.
If you're into MTF charts and what not, then I suggest heading over to the Luminous Landscape. My review is based on actual usage of this lens.
Firstly, this lens is an EF-S lens, so it will only work with Canon cropped bodies, and not with full-frame (FF) cameras like the 5D mark 2. I use this lens on the Canon 500D. Factoring in the 1.6X crop factor, the equivalent focal length is 16-35mm, which goes from ultra wide angle (UWA) to wide angle. Thus if you're thinking of going FF later, you might want to avoid this lens.
If you've used the Canon EF-S 17-85 or EF-S 17-55 lenses, you'd immediately feel at home using the EF-S 10-22. These lenses are very identical in terms of build quality, operation and design. The first thing I noticed about the 10-22 is its light weight and compact size. It is lighter than both the 17-85 and 17-55, and marginally shorter than the 17-85. The filter thread size is 77mm, which is the same size as most of Canon's pro lenses. I could carry this lens the whole day without complain.
In terms of build quality, it is very good. It sports a metal mount, a distance scale, full-time manual focusing (FTMF), and internal zooming. That means the lens does not extend when zooming (but the front element shifts in and out while zooming). The build quality, is however, not as good as the "L" series. That said, this lens is sturdy and strong enough for daily use, and should be more than acceptable for many photographers. The focusing mechanism of the lens is also very good. Focus is fast and quiet thanks to the ultrasonic motor. The minimum focusing distance is also really close, at 24cm. Again, if you've used the 17-85, the focusing speed and accuracy is almost identical, and both very good.
Now to the optical quality of the 10-22. This is where the lens really shines. Although it does not have the "L" designation, it is an optically excellent lens. I've tried shooting wide open during camp in indoor lighting conditions, and got very very sharp photos. Generally speaking, this lens was designed to perform well wide open. Stopping down does improves border sharpness, while centre sharpness doesn't seem to visibly improve at all. I was shooting at around f5.6 during the camp with flash, and at that aperture the entire frame is decently sharp as long as it's within the depth-of-field. If you don't get sharp photos with the 10-22, its likely due to mis-focus or long shutter speeds as opposed to lens sharpness issues.
Distortion on the 10-22 is also very well managed. In real-world usage it is not an issue at all. However, lens test do show a little bit of barrel distortion at 10mm. At 22mm, it is distortion-free.
If there is something negative about the 10-22's image quality, that has to be chromatic aberration (CA), or purple fringing. Generally, CA is well-managed for a UWA. It is within acceptable limits, but it is noticeably there when viewed at 100% magnification. It is more pronounced when shooting in high-contrast lighting, and less so when shooting indoors. However, if you are a photographer and not a pixel-peeper, then I can say CA is a minor issue, and can be corrected in post.
Other than that, it seems to me that the 10-22 is an optically perfect lens. It is surely not "L" build quality, but optically, I dare say it is. I wouldn't hesitate to say this is a professional lens when it comes to the images it produces.
Lastly, how does the 10-22 compare with other UWAs on the market? So far, I've used the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and so I'll make a few quick comparisons.
Of these 3 UWAs, the Sigma 10-20 is the least impressive. It is the least sharp wide open, and only works well at f8 onwards. If I have to choose one UWA specifically for events coverage, it will still be the Canon 10-22. The Tokina is also a very good lens, but the main problem is the limited zoom range. I would prefer to have the more versatile range of the Canon than the fast 2.8 aperture of the Tokina.
To conclude, I do not regret getting the Canon 10-22mm. If you shoot Canon and want a UWA, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this lens to you. I love the super wide 10mm view and the unique effect it gives, and in cramped shooting situations this lens will help you get everything in.
However, apart from events coverage, another application would be in landscape/architecture photography. In fact this was the main reason why I purchased it. Will shoot some landscapes and share my experiences in the coming weeks. But for now, this lens is highly, highly recommended, as long as you don't intend to go FF in future!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Tokina 11-16 VS Canon 17-85 lens test
My good buddy Keith lent me his Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 AT-X PRO super wide-angle lens this week to play with. Despite it being a third-party lens, it is a very high quality lens comparable to other top notch UWAs, such as the Canon 10-22mm. The distortion at 11mm is very slight, while at 16mm, distortion is almost non-existent. Sharpness when stopped down 1 stop from f2.8 is very good, and at f8.0, it is incredibly sharp across the frame. The build quality is solid, the zoom ring is smooth, and the lens is quite compact.
But then I started to wonder, just how much better is the Tokina as compared to a standard zoom lens, at wide angle 28mm? So I decided to do a quick, unscientific test between the 11-16 and my Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM. I'm just investigating the optical quality here, and my test does not take into consideration other factors like price, build quality, weight etc.
So I got my 500D steadied on a tripod and shot 2 frames at 15MP, deliberately ensuring there were high contrast areas in the picture so I could compare chromatic aberration.
I shall let the pictures speak for themselves, and yes you may pixel-peep. Click to enlarge.
11-16 (Resized, with slight crop):
17-85 (Resized):
And now for the 100% crops where the difference is noticable:
The conclusion is simple and clear-cut: if you're shooting at 28mm most of the time, get the Tokina 11-16 over the 17-85. The Canon's chromatic aberration is horribly bad compared to the Tokina. Sharpness wise the difference is less obvious, though the Tokina is much sharper of course.
But then I started to wonder, just how much better is the Tokina as compared to a standard zoom lens, at wide angle 28mm? So I decided to do a quick, unscientific test between the 11-16 and my Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM. I'm just investigating the optical quality here, and my test does not take into consideration other factors like price, build quality, weight etc.
So I got my 500D steadied on a tripod and shot 2 frames at 15MP, deliberately ensuring there were high contrast areas in the picture so I could compare chromatic aberration.
I shall let the pictures speak for themselves, and yes you may pixel-peep. Click to enlarge.
11-16 (Resized, with slight crop):
17-85 (Resized):
And now for the 100% crops where the difference is noticable:
The conclusion is simple and clear-cut: if you're shooting at 28mm most of the time, get the Tokina 11-16 over the 17-85. The Canon's chromatic aberration is horribly bad compared to the Tokina. Sharpness wise the difference is less obvious, though the Tokina is much sharper of course.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Quick Canon 500D update
My Canon 500D is about 2 months old. It is my main workhorse. Having used it thus far, here's what I think are the 3 most important upgrades from the 400D, my previous camera.
1) Live view mode
It comes in really handy especially when working on a tripod, where placing your eye at the viewfinder while composing may be cumbersome. I have used it 99% of the time while shooting macro stuff. Also allows for very precise MF if the situation calls for it.
2) Higher ISO
OK truth be told: the 500D is a noiser camera compared to the equivalent Nikons, i.e. the D5000 and D90. However, that said, the high ISO performance on the Canon 500D is decent. Compared to the 400D, I would say it is a one stop noise advantage, with NR turned on. That means a lot when working in low-light. Photos are perfectly usable up to ISO 1600, and ISO 3200 is fine as long as you're not making big prints.
3) Bigger, sharper screen
It is a JOY working with the sharp 920K dot 3" screen. It allows me to check with confidence if a shot is sharp or not. Colours are brilliant and the screen can be very bright at max brightness.
So that concludes what I think are the most significant feature upgrades from the 400D. There are many many many other features which contribute to making the 500D a wonderful camera, but I consider these 3 the most valuable.
1) Live view mode
It comes in really handy especially when working on a tripod, where placing your eye at the viewfinder while composing may be cumbersome. I have used it 99% of the time while shooting macro stuff. Also allows for very precise MF if the situation calls for it.
2) Higher ISO
OK truth be told: the 500D is a noiser camera compared to the equivalent Nikons, i.e. the D5000 and D90. However, that said, the high ISO performance on the Canon 500D is decent. Compared to the 400D, I would say it is a one stop noise advantage, with NR turned on. That means a lot when working in low-light. Photos are perfectly usable up to ISO 1600, and ISO 3200 is fine as long as you're not making big prints.
3) Bigger, sharper screen
It is a JOY working with the sharp 920K dot 3" screen. It allows me to check with confidence if a shot is sharp or not. Colours are brilliant and the screen can be very bright at max brightness.
So that concludes what I think are the most significant feature upgrades from the 400D. There are many many many other features which contribute to making the 500D a wonderful camera, but I consider these 3 the most valuable.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Canon 500D
About half a month ago, I upgraded from the Canon 400D to the new 500D/T1i SLR. I was actually contemplating between the 40D and the 500D, but found that the 500D would be sufficient for my shooting needs since I do not need the 6.5fps. Furthermore, the 500D had higher ISO speeds, shoots video, has a gorgeous screen, and as a boon has more megapixels too.
In the short time I have been using it, I am really impressed with the 500D. Although it is an entry level, 'low-end' body, I must say that it is pretty much sufficient for most amateur shooters. Roughly two years ago I bought my 400D for S$1300, but today, I am paying two hundred bucks less and I am getting features I could not imagine possible in entry level bodies 2 years ago. I am amazed at how fast technology has progressed. I mean, two years ago it could only be my dream to shoot at ISO 3200 and get a usable image. But today, with the 500D, it is reality. Two years ago, getting full 15 megapixels of resolution could only be something the higher-end bodies could offer, but today, I have it right in my thousand dollar camera. In this respect, I must really say that the 500D is a phenomenal camera. Great image quality, great features, all at a compelling price.
I'm happy shooting 500D. Although it may not be as good as the high-end 5D mark II, it is sufficient. I would prefer spending the money on better lenses. So if any of you are considering an SLR, whether you are a beginner or an advanced amateur, the 500D has a lot to offer, and doesn't burn your pocket. Highly recommended!
In the short time I have been using it, I am really impressed with the 500D. Although it is an entry level, 'low-end' body, I must say that it is pretty much sufficient for most amateur shooters. Roughly two years ago I bought my 400D for S$1300, but today, I am paying two hundred bucks less and I am getting features I could not imagine possible in entry level bodies 2 years ago. I am amazed at how fast technology has progressed. I mean, two years ago it could only be my dream to shoot at ISO 3200 and get a usable image. But today, with the 500D, it is reality. Two years ago, getting full 15 megapixels of resolution could only be something the higher-end bodies could offer, but today, I have it right in my thousand dollar camera. In this respect, I must really say that the 500D is a phenomenal camera. Great image quality, great features, all at a compelling price.
I'm happy shooting 500D. Although it may not be as good as the high-end 5D mark II, it is sufficient. I would prefer spending the money on better lenses. So if any of you are considering an SLR, whether you are a beginner or an advanced amateur, the 500D has a lot to offer, and doesn't burn your pocket. Highly recommended!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Why LX3 over G10
The Panasonic LX3 and the Canon G10 are both superb cameras in their own way. These are high-end point-and-shoot cameras aimed at photographers who need a pocket camera to complement their dSLR. But I got a LX3 over the G10. It's my first Lumix, and I'm extremely pleased with my purchase.
Here's why I chose the LX3 over the G10:
1) The G10 shoots at 15 megapixels, while the LX3 shoots at only 10. I do not need that extra resolution, as I will never be printing images from a pocket camera to such as huge size. Those extra pixels will only serve to slow down my post-processing with the larger file size. Besides that, 15MP crammed onto such a tiny sensor is going to have its consequences. The pixel pitch is much smaller than the LX3's, and therefore, noise performance is slightly worst than the LX3's. But with both these cameras, anything above ISO 800 is only for emergency.
2) The LX3 is smaller in size than the G10. If I'm going to buy a compact camera, it better be small enough to carry around, thus my choice with the LX3. The G10 is heavier and heftier, but the advantage is it offers better grip (obviously).
3) The LX3 is cheaper than the G10, by about $100.
4) The LX3 has a wider and faster lens than the G10. On 35mm equivalent, the LX3 has a 24-60mm f2.0-2.8 lens, while the G10 has a 28-140mm f2.8-4.7 lens. An f2 lens, coupled with image stabiliser, will mean I can get faster shutter speeds on the LX3 than on the G10, and this is just what I need in low-light situations. Furthermore, the 24mm wide angle is an advantage when taking group shots, and is nice to have in landscape photography too. The compromise is that the LX3 only has a 2.5X optical zoom, and doesn't have as far a reach compared to the Canon. But that's fine for me: most of the time I'm doing wide-angle stuff. Your decision will vary according to your shooting needs.
5) LX3 does incredibly good HD video (1280x720 @ 30fps). The G10 on the other hand only does mediocre 640x480 video. The downside is that video on the LX3 is stored as Quicktime motion JPG, which is an aging format, and file sizes tend to be huge. But still, the quality is stunning!
6) LX3 has a switch dedicated to changing aspect ratios - 4:3, 3:2 or 16:9. The cool thing is that in any aspect ratio, the same angle of view is maintained. As a result, you make the most of the sensor's area, getting similar pixel counts in all modes.
7) The LX3 has some really cool scene modes, notably the film grain mode, which simulates B&W film images, and also the pinhole mode, which simulates pinhole images with strong vignetting.
8) The LX3 shoots up to ISO 3200; the G10 only goes up to a max of ISO 1600. Sadly, ISO 3200 on the LX3 is anything but usable. Still, it's an advantage over the Canon.
Here's why I chose the LX3 over the G10:
1) The G10 shoots at 15 megapixels, while the LX3 shoots at only 10. I do not need that extra resolution, as I will never be printing images from a pocket camera to such as huge size. Those extra pixels will only serve to slow down my post-processing with the larger file size. Besides that, 15MP crammed onto such a tiny sensor is going to have its consequences. The pixel pitch is much smaller than the LX3's, and therefore, noise performance is slightly worst than the LX3's. But with both these cameras, anything above ISO 800 is only for emergency.
2) The LX3 is smaller in size than the G10. If I'm going to buy a compact camera, it better be small enough to carry around, thus my choice with the LX3. The G10 is heavier and heftier, but the advantage is it offers better grip (obviously).
3) The LX3 is cheaper than the G10, by about $100.
4) The LX3 has a wider and faster lens than the G10. On 35mm equivalent, the LX3 has a 24-60mm f2.0-2.8 lens, while the G10 has a 28-140mm f2.8-4.7 lens. An f2 lens, coupled with image stabiliser, will mean I can get faster shutter speeds on the LX3 than on the G10, and this is just what I need in low-light situations. Furthermore, the 24mm wide angle is an advantage when taking group shots, and is nice to have in landscape photography too. The compromise is that the LX3 only has a 2.5X optical zoom, and doesn't have as far a reach compared to the Canon. But that's fine for me: most of the time I'm doing wide-angle stuff. Your decision will vary according to your shooting needs.
5) LX3 does incredibly good HD video (1280x720 @ 30fps). The G10 on the other hand only does mediocre 640x480 video. The downside is that video on the LX3 is stored as Quicktime motion JPG, which is an aging format, and file sizes tend to be huge. But still, the quality is stunning!
6) LX3 has a switch dedicated to changing aspect ratios - 4:3, 3:2 or 16:9. The cool thing is that in any aspect ratio, the same angle of view is maintained. As a result, you make the most of the sensor's area, getting similar pixel counts in all modes.
7) The LX3 has some really cool scene modes, notably the film grain mode, which simulates B&W film images, and also the pinhole mode, which simulates pinhole images with strong vignetting.
8) The LX3 shoots up to ISO 3200; the G10 only goes up to a max of ISO 1600. Sadly, ISO 3200 on the LX3 is anything but usable. Still, it's an advantage over the Canon.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Canon update
Canon announces 1000D entry-level dSLR and Speedlite 430EX II flash
Canon launched the affordable EOS 300D in 2003, and over the years, has improved considerably to become the 450D today. Due to increasing competition by other manufacturers to provide budget cameras, Canon announced the 1000D - a dSLR sitting beneath the 450D in the lineup to compete with the likes of the Nikon D60. Hoping to replicate the success of the 300D back then, this camera is both affordable and has a good feature set. Essentially, it is saddled between the 400D and 450D.
It has many features of the 450D, but in a lighter less expensive package. According to dpreview: “The EOS 1000D is a small camera with a big idea: the supreme adaptability and image quality of the EOS system, in an accessible, affordable package,” said Mogens Jensen, Head of Canon Consumer Imaging Europe. “For anyone ready to take the next step in creative photography, it offers the perfect entry point to the world of D-SLR.”
Features:
-10.1 MP sensor (1.6 crop factor)
-DIGIC III image processor
-EOS Integrated Cleaning System
-7 point AF (as opposed to 9 points on 400D/450D)
-2.5" LCD with Live View
-SD/SDHC memory cards
-3fps continuous shooting until card is full
-Compatible with EF/EF-S lenses
The features are actually quite good, and in some ways better than my 400D, such as Live View and DIGIC III. I think Canon has a camera well positioned to take on it's main competitor - the D60.
Apart from the 1000D, Canon also announced a revision to their mid-range external flash unit, the Speedlite 430EX II. This new flash offers 20% faster recycle times and a new quick release similar to that of the 580EX II. Now mounting and dismounting is so much easier, thankfully! Also, there can be full control of the flash via the camera's menu system of compatible EOS cameras, like the 40D.
Great stuff Canon!
Canon launched the affordable EOS 300D in 2003, and over the years, has improved considerably to become the 450D today. Due to increasing competition by other manufacturers to provide budget cameras, Canon announced the 1000D - a dSLR sitting beneath the 450D in the lineup to compete with the likes of the Nikon D60. Hoping to replicate the success of the 300D back then, this camera is both affordable and has a good feature set. Essentially, it is saddled between the 400D and 450D.
It has many features of the 450D, but in a lighter less expensive package. According to dpreview: “The EOS 1000D is a small camera with a big idea: the supreme adaptability and image quality of the EOS system, in an accessible, affordable package,” said Mogens Jensen, Head of Canon Consumer Imaging Europe. “For anyone ready to take the next step in creative photography, it offers the perfect entry point to the world of D-SLR.”
Features:
-10.1 MP sensor (1.6 crop factor)
-DIGIC III image processor
-EOS Integrated Cleaning System
-7 point AF (as opposed to 9 points on 400D/450D)
-2.5" LCD with Live View
-SD/SDHC memory cards
-3fps continuous shooting until card is full
-Compatible with EF/EF-S lenses
The features are actually quite good, and in some ways better than my 400D, such as Live View and DIGIC III. I think Canon has a camera well positioned to take on it's main competitor - the D60.
Apart from the 1000D, Canon also announced a revision to their mid-range external flash unit, the Speedlite 430EX II. This new flash offers 20% faster recycle times and a new quick release similar to that of the 580EX II. Now mounting and dismounting is so much easier, thankfully! Also, there can be full control of the flash via the camera's menu system of compatible EOS cameras, like the 40D.
Great stuff Canon!
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Camera-less
I don't have any useable camera with me now! Both my 400D and my 17-85 lens is at the Canon service centre for repairs. :(
After my camera turns one year old (and the warranty expires), the equipment starts to breakdown and give problems. Well, as I tell many people, it is after all the cheapest Canon body, so I can't expect it to be super great after all. On the 400D, the pop-up flash won't pop-up and is stuck, while the 17-85 (which isn't a crap lens btw) has error 99 and can't take photos.
I'm disappointed with the 17-85 more than the 400D, that it would be so unreliable. I treat it with much care lor!
So in the mean time while waiting for the stuff to come back, I'm reduced to using compacts or borrowing school equipment (which = kit lens).
A small voice within me is saying 'I want a 40D!!'
After my camera turns one year old (and the warranty expires), the equipment starts to breakdown and give problems. Well, as I tell many people, it is after all the cheapest Canon body, so I can't expect it to be super great after all. On the 400D, the pop-up flash won't pop-up and is stuck, while the 17-85 (which isn't a crap lens btw) has error 99 and can't take photos.
I'm disappointed with the 17-85 more than the 400D, that it would be so unreliable. I treat it with much care lor!
So in the mean time while waiting for the stuff to come back, I'm reduced to using compacts or borrowing school equipment (which = kit lens).
A small voice within me is saying 'I want a 40D!!'
Friday, January 25, 2008
EOS 450D prototype launched
Just yesterday, dpreview reported that Canon announced a new compact digital SLR, the EOS 450D (Digital Rebel XSi), which is an upgrade to the current 400D. Together with that, there will be a new battery grip (BG-E5) too.
As can be seen, the new body is noticeably bigger and hence has a better grip, which is always a good thing considering how minute the 400D is now. Also, built quality has improved, e.g. metallic hot shoe mount and strap handles.
Here are the main new features:
- 12.2MP CMOS sensor (Up from 10.1MP)
- EOS cleaning system & Picture Styles (already present in 400D)
- Improved 9 point AF
- 3-inch LCD with Live View (I like that!)
- Larger viewfinder (I like that too!)
- DIGIC III imaging processor (400D uses DIGIC II)
- SPOT METERING (oh, one of the biggest improvements!)
- SD/SDHC cards instead of traditional CF (I dislike this change)
- Redesigned menu layout (including My Menu as seen in 40D)
- ISO setting displays in viewfinder and ISO button
- New high capacity battery
- Highlight Tone Priority (from 40D)
- Auto Lighting Optimiser (boosts shadows after shooting)
What's still missing...
- ISO 3200!
For full article, click here.
I think that there are significant improvements, many borrowed from its larger sibling the 40D, but more could be done... Nonetheless, I'm excited.
As can be seen, the new body is noticeably bigger and hence has a better grip, which is always a good thing considering how minute the 400D is now. Also, built quality has improved, e.g. metallic hot shoe mount and strap handles.
Here are the main new features:
- 12.2MP CMOS sensor (Up from 10.1MP)
- EOS cleaning system & Picture Styles (already present in 400D)
- Improved 9 point AF
- 3-inch LCD with Live View (I like that!)
- Larger viewfinder (I like that too!)
- DIGIC III imaging processor (400D uses DIGIC II)
- SPOT METERING (oh, one of the biggest improvements!)
- SD/SDHC cards instead of traditional CF (I dislike this change)
- Redesigned menu layout (including My Menu as seen in 40D)
- ISO setting displays in viewfinder and ISO button
- New high capacity battery
- Highlight Tone Priority (from 40D)
- Auto Lighting Optimiser (boosts shadows after shooting)
What's still missing...
- ISO 3200!
For full article, click here.
I think that there are significant improvements, many borrowed from its larger sibling the 40D, but more could be done... Nonetheless, I'm excited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)