Scrag, that's rather arrogant and ignorant of you... I own 3 L lenses which are great, but I also want a superzoom for those times when I want one lens and one body to cover a focal length range otherwise requiring 2 heavy L lenses and 2 bodies, if I don't want to switch lenses. A number of pro Nikon shooters use the 18-200 VR for scouting locations and for personal casual shots.

Your own personal preferences are not those of the rest of the market.

dnheller

the 18-200 doesn't do it all.

but it does alot more than the consumer grade glass canon has been putting out.

endless

Yea, the Nikon 18-200 ably demonstrates that you really can't have it all. But it's a big talking point from the Nikon side "look! one lens does it all!", so I guess Canon felt the need to end that particular argument.

MaxRC

A new 18-200 is a big rumor right now and it's expected to be revealed at photokina. I would personally never buy one, but a lot of people want a "super zoom". I'm sure these same people basically want their dSLR to act "just like their compact point-and-shoot" too.

Spend money on good glass and you'll get better photos.

scrag

18-200? So this is a new lens for Canon?

This looks almost exactly like a 40D, I can't spot any differences other than the label. That said, this looks par for the course in terms of styling. No better or worse lookin than other DLSRs of this class.

MaxRC

They sure make ugly cameras. :P That looks used already.

ejdmoo

Fake. The site that it comes from ( [www.canon.icp.dog-cr.jp]) is registered by:

Dog Creative Inc.
Postal Address Taito-ku
6-30-6 Higashi-ueno
Watanabe Building 2F
Japan

It's also been taken down now I see. An impressive fake though, I gotta admit. They even changed the EXIF on the sample photos.

TailsNZ

Shop'd

MastaFalse

@scrag: "Spend money on good glass and you'll get better photos."

absolutely true.

rudeadly

1 million freakin points for the sample shot of an STi rally car. *drool*

elislider

i think its the 18-200 L... anyways I'm sticking with my 30D

nuance

@ejdmoo: haha, i'd agree with that. Thats why i love my Sony a-700, the design actually looks like a new camera, instead of revamps of an old film SLR.

shorty6049

@shorty6049: You bought an SLR because it looks good? Yeah, okay. Have fun shooting in auto mode. Meanwhile most people buy SLRs because they take good pictures, and Canon's are top notch when it comes to that, regardless of how 'ugly' they look. Some people could argue they don't like the a700 because they think it's a revamp of a cheap point and shoot.

Mammoth

@dnheller: I think you're being a bit unfair on Scrag. There is a big difference between these inexpensive kit lenses and L-series glass.

While I have a couple of non-L lenses that I still use (like the 85mm F/1.8), once people (with a decent eye) have used high-quality lenses it's likely that they'll be disappointed by the lower end ones. Then there's the constant fear of what if you get a good shot, that would have been a great shot but for the fact you decided to save weight and the time and effort of changing lenses?

Of course that kind of all-or-nothing thinking does lead to leaving your camera at home when you can't be bothered to carry it. And as I always say, the camera that takes the worst photos is the one you leave at home!

LittleJon

I really want to buy a DSLR as over the years I've gotten more into photography, and aim to continue further. Holding off until new models come out though has proven quite useful, in the meantime I've been improving the stuff that comes out of my 2 1/2 year old compact.

Showing the photos to friends, they think I must have some amazing camera, but it's really just knowing the settings to use, imagination and a bit of luck.

Originally I thought a better camera would make you a better photographer, but now I'm learning that's not the case. It's just a tool. But as a tech nut, I love to see what new features they've added into the new DSLRs, and I'm sure sometime over the next year I'll get my first bit of new equipment.

In fact a few years back Photojournalism Magazine's Photographer of the Year was a compact camera user, no RAW format or anything. His name is Alex Majoli; [www.robgalbraith.com]

TailsNZ

I wish canon to include a Touch sensitive LCD in the back for better Ux, Navigation, Design and review of taken photos, at least a regular touch screen :x
So that it can skip a step to the NextGen DSLR

Ben Jacob

mm sorry i think the dedicated buttons trump a touch screen especially when you want quick access during a photoshoot

flareak

I don't know - 15.1mp Digic 4 and that new 17-85 lens look awful nice to me :-)

Nerys

@scrag: No, some of us just like having a good all in one walk around lens for those times when getting a shot is a lot more important than not having chromatic aberration or softness at the edges that 90% of people will never notice. Say, for instance, at your child's birthday party or on vacation. That doesn't mean that you don't want a "serious" set of lenses, it just means that you realize that the wonder of an SLR is that it can, in fact, be all things to all people depending on how you kit it out.

Spoondizzle

Seriously, buying an SLR for its looks is retarded. The only exception I would make are those tacky silver bodies that are clearly aimed at wealth Japanese teens but inexplicably marketed here.

I do think the 50D is an unnecessary upgrade to the 40D.

markarian

Yeah, this was fake... thanks though.

UofITom

@scrag: "Spend money on good glass and you'll get better photos."

This is not true. Sure, you may get better sharpness or color, etc., but those alone don't make good photos. I've seen great photographs taken with non-L lenses and kit lenses.

Ike_Skelton

I wish it was just chromatic abberations and edge softness. Also add in severe distortion, low optical resolution and a relatively slow f-stop. Suddenly, having only half the focal range doesn't sound so bad.

I mean really, 200mm for a birthday party? What are you shooting at, freckles from across a soccer field? Bit of an exaggeration, but you get my drift...

It is indeed up to the skill of the photographer to determine how good a photo turns out, and lenses are just tools towards that end. And how do you justify trading off so many important performance factors just to have a 2x advantage in focal length?

MaxRC

@dnheller: anyone who needs a superzoom on a DSLR is a lazyass. if you have 3 Ls, then you should know that primes are where its at. Walking around with a 35L and a 135L on standby is bliss But then again, I shoot Leica, so I will stuck to my Summicron 35 f/2

BeatriceNightingale

@MaxRC:

"Also add in severe distortion, low optical resolution and a relatively slow f-stop. Suddenly, having only half the focal range doesn't sound so bad."

Which, 90% of people don't know or care about. The problem with talking about art with artists is there's a marked tendency to get completely wrapped up in the technical details at the expense of all else (it's one of the reasons that I don't really talk music with guitarists anymore). Oh, I'd love it if all of my lenses were super duper fast and had flawless optics. But my lenses exist only so that I can take pictures through them and I've missed plenty of shots swapping out lenses in the past. Given the choice, I'll take getting the shot over all else.

"I mean really, 200mm for a birthday party? What are you shooting at, freckles from across a soccer field? Bit of an exaggeration, but you get my drift..."

Not at all, I used a 70 - 300mm zoom at my niece's graduation party which was held in her parent's fairly big yard to get a picture of her small cousins playing in the pool house. They were about as far away from me as you could get and it was a cute scene, that I caught because I had a fairly long zoom. Had I tried to shoot that same shot with, say, my 50mm prime they would have simply been a background element in a crowd scene and by the time I could have switched lenses the actual moment that I was trying to catch would have been lost. But, you're right, there's no reason whatsoever to need a long zoom in a social situation. Ever.

"And how do you justify trading off so many important performance factors just to have a 2x advantage in focal length?"

Easy. If I got a shot that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise, then it's justified. Oh there's distortion or the colors are a little off or it's kinda soft here or there, but it existing trumps all.

Spoondizzle

Hi all, Canon's 24-105L is the perfect every day lens. I bring out the 11-18 Tammy for landscape shots and borrow a friend's Canon 100-400 for when I need monster zoom. Get the right lens for how you shoot, plain and simple. Borrow or rent everything else.

kwanzabot

@Spoondizzle: +1

I have a Sony A350 and my primary lens is the 18-250 mm. This will be the only lens I take to Africa in a few weeks. Yesterday I used it with my fancy new high-powered flash for my nephew's 1st birthday party. Indoors. I could stand out of the way and zoom in across the room on whatever looked like a good picture in the making. Most fun. I cannot wait to review the pics.

Superzooms have their place. Do I wish for a bagful of high-speed primes? You bet. But besides the $$ issue, is that practical at all times? Of course not. I firmly believe that 90% of picture quality is composition. 8% is skill using your camera. 1% can be fixed with a good editing program. 1% left for the actual gear.

Some percentage changes for indoor/low light shooting or if you are getting paid for your pics. No $$ coming my way and skill can help close the gap on less than ideal equipment.

JChristopher

@MaxRC: I think they have finally realised that the 18-200 lense offers something for people who want a good all round lens. Sure a lens like that is not going to offer the best optics, but it what people want. Currently they are losing out to Sigma and Tamron.

twilight-arc

That looks like a... camera.

Shadowguitar

BeatriceNightingale, that you are Leica snob says it all.
How about a link to your wildlife gallery of images taken with your Leicas? What's that? You can't get close enough to those skittish birds with a 135mm prime, even when cropped?

I also shoot primes sometimes, and they give outstanding results despite being neither Canon L lenses nor Leica.

One should choose the best tool for the type of job one is to perform. Galen Rowell often took a cheapo Canon Rebel and consumer-grade 75-300 zoom on trail runs instead of his heavy pro Nikon gear; the light weight of the Canon Rebel kit was worth the trade-off in optical quality. He knew how to use it at its best, and how to avoid its weaknesses.

For anybody to state that either L lenses or primes are the best or only useful tool for all situations is pure sophistry.

dnheller

@twilight-arc: Yea I can appreciate what Canon is trying to do. Having played with a good friend's D300/18-200 I am solidly impressed by the capabilities of that combination. I just think it's not productive for there to be such a focus on the focal range that everything else gets depreciated as being not particularly important.

MaxRC

@Spoondizzle:
"Which, 90% of people don't know or care about. The problem with talking about art with artists is there's a marked tendency to get completely wrapped up in the technical details at the expense of all else (it's one of the reasons that I don't really talk music with guitarists anymore)."

If someone doesn't know or care about someting as fundamental as f-stop, I question whether a DSLR is the best choice for their shooting needs. I am not saying we should all be focused on the technical details of the equipment instead of focusing on taking good shots, but the fact remains that a more balanced lens gives the "artist" greater degree of creative freedom in capturing images. Being able to go down to F2.8 and get that extra bit of background blur, and being able to shoot wide open in a downtown setting without the buildings appearing to cave in from both sides have artistic value. Every lens represents a set of tradeoffs between various performance aspecs and we shouldn't be so careless in equipment selection so as to let *one* particular technical merit, in this case focal range, dominate to the detriment of all other performance aspects.

"Easy. If I got a shot that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise, then it's justified. Oh there's distortion or the colors are a little off or it's kinda soft here or there, but it existing trumps all."
There is nothing you can capture at 200mm that can't be captured at 100mm, you'll just have to crop the heck out of it and the quality of the final framed shot suffers. So in the end, it still really comes down to trade-offs and it is simply not a good idea to trade off the quality of 95% of your shots, just so that you can avoid cropping for the remaining 5%.

MaxRC

@MaxRC: "If someone doesn't know or care about someting as fundamental as f-stop, I question whether a DSLR is the best choice for their shooting needs."

I can guarantee you that no one has EVER asked me about the f-stop of a picture of mine that they've seen. It's either "that's a great shot" or "eh." People who actually look at pictures, vs. people who take them, tend to be much, MUCH less interested in the technical details and much more interested in fundamentals of composition.

"I am not saying we should all be focused on the technical details of the equipment instead of focusing on taking good shots, but the fact remains that a more balanced lens gives the "artist" greater degree of creative freedom in capturing images."

I'm not arguing that at all. What I am saying is that not everyone needs or wants a half gajillion dollars worth of lenses in their bag every day. Simply put, I was arguing that a 18 - 200mm lens is a good all purpose lens for snapshots. Would I shoot an NFL game for the AP with it? No, but that's not remotely what it's for.

"There is nothing you can capture at 200mm that can't be captured at 100mm, you'll just have to crop the heck out of it and the quality of the final framed shot suffers."

So, what you're saying is that instead of having a slightly lower quality lens to shoot a shot with and maybe getting a slightly lower quality end result I should...Use a higher quality lens and crop it to get a slightly lower quality end result? I can't argue that logic

"So in the end, it still really comes down to trade-offs and it is simply not a good idea to trade off the quality of 95% of your shots, just so that you can avoid cropping for the remaining 5%."

Other trade-offs: That high quality glass you speak of is prohibitively expensive to many. You WILL find yourself juggling lenses at some point and missing shots. You don't make a dime off of photography and even though you can afford high dollar lenses, your good sense won't let you justify them.

Me, I say, by what you can afford, shoot what you want and have fun. If people look down their noses at you, that's on them.

Spoondizzle

@Spoondizzle:
"I can guarantee you that no one has EVER asked me about the f-stop of a picture of mine that they've seen. It's either "that's a great shot" or "eh." People who actually look at pictures, vs. people who take them, tend to be much, MUCH less interested in the technical details and much more interested in fundamentals of composition."

But we are talking about the 18-200 with respect to people who take pictures, not people who look at pictures. People who take pictures should know about things like focal lengths, f-stops, and etc. You don't just put the camera on full auto, press the shutter release, and hope for the best, do you?

"Other trade-offs: That high quality glass you speak of is prohibitively expensive to many. You WILL find yourself juggling lenses at some point and missing shots. You don't make a dime off of photography and even though you can afford high dollar lenses, your good sense won't let you justify them."

I never said you had to spend $$$ and buy high quality lenses to take good pictures. What I am saying is that for a similar amount of money that the 18-200 will cost, you will find other lenses that while does not cover the same focal range, offers superior performance in other aspects.

"Me, I say, by what you can afford, shoot what you want and have fun. If people look down their noses at you, that's on them."

I don't think this is what's going on here. I shoot with the 28-135mm kit lens that came with my 40D when I need the extra zoom. I've taken about the same amount of "keepers" with this lens as I have with the much more expensive 17-55mm canon lens. I am not saying you need an expensive lens to take good pictures; I just don't think it is wise to be so focused on having absolute focal range that you marginalize all of the other important aspects of lens performance.

MaxRC

@MaxRC: "But we are talking about the 18-200 with respect to people who take pictures, not people who look at pictures."

We miscommunicated, the comment that you were responding to, "No, some of us just like having a good all in one walk around lens for those times when getting a shot is a lot more important than not having chromatic aberration or softness at the edges that 90% of people will never notice." I was talking about viewers. Again, people who take pictures are a lot more caught up in that than people who look at them.

"What I am saying is that for a similar amount of money that the 18-200 will cost, you will find other lenses that while does not cover the same focal range, offers superior performance in other aspects."

Right, but like you said, "trade offs." If it's more important for me to be able to snap that picture without cropping, who are you to say I'm wrong because it's more important to you to have less barrel distortion? Unless you're paying me for the shot, then you can make all the crazy demands you want, a man's gotta eat. But, I'll speak from my own experience, I bought an 18 - 200 lens specifically for those times when I didn't feel like lugging a 35lb camera bag around with me, but I still wanted to catch a picture or two. Doesn't mean I don't use other lenses (actually, of late I've used my "Nifty Fifty" and my Elan 7n more than ANY zoom OR my DSLR) but it means that I don't feel like lugging them around all the time and I like having that flexibility.

"I don't think this is what's going on here. I shoot with the 28-135mm kit lens that came with my 40D when I need the extra zoom. I've taken about the same amount of "keepers" with this lens as I have with the much more expensive 17-55mm canon lens. I am not saying you need an expensive lens to take good pictures"

Agreed

"I just don't think it is wise to be so focused on having absolute focal range that you marginalize all of the other important aspects of lens performance."

I don't think I argued that.I was responding to someone who was basically saying that someone who wants a "superzoom" lens on an SLR doesn't understand what having an SLR is about. Everyone places different importance on what they want out of a camera. If someone is willing to trade a little in picture quality for actually getting the picture, I don't think that's a bad trade (plus, some people might LIKE the occasional softness. In my experience "character" is just a nice way of saying "imperfection."). Me, I like having flexibility, which means that I buy all sorts of lenses, some cheap, some embarrassingly not so (yes, I've had to explain to my wife why that one lens cost more than the camera it's attached to). Each are there to do a job, and each has trade-offs. But I like having them all.

Spoondizzle

Oh yeah, even though I kinda doubt this is true (one year would be really out of character for Canon) I really hope it is, because I totally want a 40D and a 50D would drop the price of one down to "justifiable."

Spoondizzle

@MaxRC: "What I am saying is that for a similar amount of money that the 18-200 will cost, you will find other lenses that while does not cover the same focal range, offers superior performance in other aspects."

Sure. But only if you are willing and have the time to change lenses. I miss shots even when I have the right setup and I am looking through the viewfinder at the subject.

Why?

Because my Sony only shoots 2 frames/second. Even less when shooting RAW+JPG+Flash. Just think what would happen if I had to change lenses.

Its about getting the shot with the tools you can use.

When sensors are 50 MP FF, we can all walk around with a 30 mm F1.4 and crop forever. Until then, I am using my 18-250 mm. If a faster version ever comes out, I will be the first in line.

JChristopher

I guess it's possible to change the EXIF data.... but the EXIF data does list it as a 50D. Also list the shot as being taken with the 600mm f.4 lens. And it's in focus so we know it wasn't taken with one of the newer MIII cameras.. ;-)
Anybody know who Eric Reagan is? Looking at his smugmug account, I wouldn't have pegged him as a beta tester for Canon.

SiriusPhotog