This Friday at 10:00pm ET on +That Show with Billy Wilson (TSBW) we’ll be joined by Photographers +Elia Locardi, +Jordan Oram, & +Wick Sakit along with Special Musical Guest +Frank Palangi. Let us know if you’d like us to answer anything. The show will be live here. Refresh when we’re about to go live and the player will be there.
For more information and to get reminders about the show visit the event page.
Frank Palangi will be my musical guest this Friday on That Show with Billy Wilson (TSBW) at 10:00pm Eastern here. Refresh when we’re about to go live and the player will be there.
For more information and to get reminders about the show visit the event page.
So, okay, I think it’s been since around 2009 since I last made a post on here but I’m going to start using this again. It probably won’t be camera related like before but instead I’m aiming on using this as a stream of content from guests I have coming up on my show.
Starting with the amazing Brizzy Voices! On May 31st at 10:00pm Eastern Brizzy will be part of my show alongside other Wonderlings. We’ll be live here: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheBillster2/live Refresh when we’re about to go live and the player will be there.
Currently Olympus’ flagship camera is the Olympus E-3 (10.1 megapixels, MSRP=$1,700 USD) which was released back in 2007. Before the E3 they had the E1 (4.9 megapixels, MSRP=$2,200) which was released back in 2003. The price of a flagship Olympus seems to have always been more than a comparible product from Canon, the Canon EOS 10D released the same year as the E1 had 6.3 megapixels and an MSRP of $1,400 USD. Between the E1 and the E3 4 years elapsed, when the E3 was released it was a 10.1 megapixel camera when most of its competitors such as the Nikon D300 and the Sony Alpha D-SLR A700 had 12 megapixel sensors. Olympus might have been a bit more conservative with the amount of resolution of their sensor because the 4/3 sensor is a bit smaller than the APS-C sensor found in Canons, Nikons, Pentaxes, and Sonys. In 2008 they released a watered down version of the E3 with a smaller price tag (MSRP=$1,300 USD) but it had a higher resolution (12.3 megapixels) and the same continuous speed of 5fps (frmaes per second), which is rather low considering that a similarly priced Canon EOS 50D can shoot at 6.3fps and slightly more expensive models on the market today such as the Canon EOS 7D (18 megapixels, MSRP=$1,700 USD) and Nikon D300S (12.3 megapixels, MSRP=$1,800 USD) can shoot at 8 and 7 fps respectively. Now that 3 years have elapsed since the introduction of the Olympus E3 there should be a newer model released as an update, especially since their E30 has quite a few better selling points then their own top of the line model (mainly lower price, higher resolution, and same fps). Also competitors such as Nikon and Canon have models similarly priced that can shoot at higher speeds and at a higher resolution. Therefore it is clear that Olympus is in need of a refreshing of the flagship E3 model.
Getty Images is a professional stock photography agency that many people would like to contribute to because of high payouts. They have a list of approved digital cameras which is highly limiting to many people and quite biased based on camera price and marketing hype. Here is their current list of approved cameras:
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II
Canon EOS 1Ds
Canon EOS 7D
Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Canon EOS 5D
Canon EOS 1D Mark VI
Canon EOS 1D Mark III
Canon EOS 1D Mark II
Canon EOS 1D Mark IIn
Canon EOS 1D
Canon EOS 50D
Canon EOS 40D
Canon EOS 30D
2. Nikon
Nikon D90
Nikon D700
Nikon D3X
Nikon D300S
Nikon D300
Nikon D200
Nikon D3
Nikon D2Xs
Nikon D2X
3. Leica
Leica M8.2
Leica M8
4. Olympus
Olympus E3
5. Pentax
Pentax K7
Pentax K20D
6. Sony
Sony Alpha D-SLR A900
Now first of all this list seems childish, in that Getty thinks you need a particular camera to create quality images. I also want to point out some really stupid aspects about this list, I will start with Canon. Now one of the most absurd cameras on that list is the Canon EOS 1D, which really makes me laugh. First of all, by digital standards it is a dinosaur, it came out in 2001 and has a Panasonic sourced sensor. I know someone who has used this camers and while they will agree that it is a good camera body, they said that the image quality was not up to par, for instance its resolution is only 4.1 megapixels, which to todays standards is very low. Also it was mentioned that long exposure noise was very high, limiting the use of this camera (although this should not be too much of an issue to studio photographers). If Getty only wants to make certain that you have invested a lot into your camera equiptment by listing higher end cameras, then why would the Canon EOS 1D be listed here when it is so out of date that on Ebay you can pick one up for as little as $300. Also if a professional camera body with 4.1 megapixels is allowed then why isn’t the Nikon D1X, Nikon D2H, and Nikon D2Hs allowed when they have 5.3, 4.0, and 4.0 megapixels respectively. Also the Nikon D2Hs professional body came out in 2005, which makes it 4 years newer that the Canon EOS 1D! The Canon EOS 1D Mark II is listed here, which is understandable, it came out in 2004 and has 8.2 megapixels, the same resolution as the Canon EOS 30D, which is also listed here, but what is missing is the Canon EOS 20D which also has 8.2 megapixels. Although the Canon EOS 20D is older (came out in 2004) it has the same resolution, but isn’t counted on the list, on Ebay it costs $250 on average, only $50 less that the Canon EOS 1D (4.1 megapixels) that I already mentioned being on the list, so why isn’t this model on the list? It has a higher resolution and is newer than the Canon EOS 1D and is only a fraction cheaper used. Another model not listed is the Canon EOS 350D (Rebel XT) which has a resolution of 8.0 megapixels, although being a cheaper body, it is as good in practice as the 20D/30D (aside from being harder to use in studio for having a more “amature” layout). Since Getty has set the precedent that age does not matter on their list by allowing the Canon EOS 1D to be on it then they should allow any digital camera body after the year 2001 that has enough resolution and image quality. To continue sliding down the slope from the “amature” Canon EOS 350D, we should note that the Canon EOS 40D is on the list while the Canon EOS 400D (Rebel XTI) is not. Although these two camera bodies share the same resolution at 10.0 megapixels, the Canon EOS 400D is not included in the list. Other “amature” bodies are also not included on the list such as the Canon EOS 450D (12.2 megapixels), Canon EOS 500D (15.1 megapixels), and the Canon EOS 1000D (10.1 megapixels). all of these bodies cost more than the listed Canon EOS 30D/40D and the 1D, since they are “new” but they are not listed. One very interesting point is that the Canon EOS 450D and Canon EOS 500D both offer rather high resolution, but what makes them special is that they are the only “amature” camera bodies that offer 14 bit files! Many professionals who buy $8,000 USD Nikons bost this feature as revolutionizing the tones in their images, but little do some of them know that they could have bought this feature in an “amature” body costing only $600 USD. The point that is trying to be put forth here is that Getty does not discriminate “professional” camera bodies based on age, but discriminates against more price conscious camera bodies (such as the 20D/30D/40D/50D) based on age, as seen by them not allowing any camera bodies older that the Canon EOS 30D although they have the same resolution. Also Getty discriminates against camera bodies that are marketed as “amature” although their resolution and image quality performance is better than the older “professional” camera bodies which they allow.
Now onto Nikon, now as I pointed out when discussing Canon, Getty does not accept all Nikon professional bodies, such as; Nikon D1, Nikon D1H, Nikon D1X, Nikon D2H, and the Nikon D2Hs. All of these bodies aside from the original Nikon D1 which has only 2.6 megapixels, have enough resolution when compared to what they allowed on the list from the Canon professional bodies. One interesting note is that they do not list any Nikon bodies earlier than 2004, begining with their D2X (12.2 megapixels). In 2005 Nikon released their Nikon D200 (10.0 megapixels) which makes the list, but their 2006 release of the Nikon D80 (10.0 megapixels) did not make the list. The only explanation for this is their apparent method of discriminating against camera models due to their brand’s marketing as “amature”. Another interesting note is that they accepted the Nikon D90, which is as “amature” in practice as the Nikon D80, but I think this might be due to excessive marketing from Nikon and bringing up the Nikon D90’s image to the public, dispite the cost being equal when new. One final note concerning Nikon is the performance to price comparision to Canon. Canon offers their Canon EOS 500D body for only $800 USD which includes 15.1 megapixel resolution and 14 bit files, but if you want 14 bit files with Nikon you need to bypass their “amature” models including the Nikon D90 and purchase their Nikon D300S at $1,700 USD, which only has a resolution of 12.3 megapixels.
Now onto Leica, which is a very interesting camera. Leicas use Kodak sensors, but do you see any other Kodak sensor cameras listed by Getty? No. All of the early digital Nikons and Canons that came with a Kodak sensor are not listed. Not even the full-frame, high resolution models such as the Kodak DCS Pro 14n (13.7 megapixels), Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n,c (13.5 megapixels) are even listed (note the Kodak DCS Pro SLR had a sensor sourced from a company called “Fillfactory”). One of the problems with these later full-frame Kodak sensored Nikons, was that Nikon did not want Kodak to compete against their Nikon D1/X/H cameras, so they supplied Kodak with an “amature” body, their Nikon F80. Nikon also did this to Fujifilm with their models; Fujifilm Finepix S1 Pro/S2 Pro/S3 Pro (3.1, 6.1, and 6.1 megapixels respectively), until finally giving Fujifilm their Nikon D200 body to fiddle around with, which they made into their Fujifilm Finepix S5 Pro (6.1 megapixel). I believe that here Getty has discriminated against “amature” camera bodies again, although these cameras are able to produce excellent results they do not include them in their list. Now back to Leica proper, Leica is a very simple mechanical camera, that has been given a Kodak sensor that is placed in their Leica M8/M8.2 (both 10.3 megapixels) bodies, for some reason the full-frame Leica M9 (18.0 megapixels) is not listed (probably will be soon). These Leica bodies, although using the Kodak sensor are probably listed because of Getty’s discrimination between “amature” and “professional” camera bodies. Although very simple, Leica bodies are considered “professional” by many photographers (their lenses are certainly their real selling point). With a Leica camera body you cannot get any simplier, they are as basic as they come! By allowing these Leica bodies, I can see no reason why they shouldn’t allow “amature” camera bodies from manufactures like Nikon and Canon (since their feaure lists are higher and resolution same or better). Overall, Getty’s choice in allowing these particular camera bodies further shows that they do not discriminate based on camera features (Leica bodies are “bare boned”), nor do they discriminate based on performance, shown by them not allowing Canon and Nikon mount full-frame bodies that have resolution over 12 megapixels. So it would appear that getting is discriminating camera bodies based on “prestige” (digital Leica bodies cost around $7,000 USD, despite their simple features), hence you are buying something with a Leica name.
Finally onto Olympus, Pentax, and Sony, which Getty seems to have reluctantly chosen very few models from these brands for their list. It would seem that they value the “Canon” and “Nikon” brand names more. It must be said that Pentax and Olympus do not produce models that are as high-end as Canon and Nikon, but their performance of many of their models should atleast equal Getty’s allowed Canon EOS 1D at only 4.1 megapixels. It seems that this may indicate some degree of brand discrimination. One intersting point is that The Pentax K7 and K20D are both accepted on the list but they both use the same Samsung sourced sensor that can be found on the Samsung GX-20 which is not included on their list. This shows that Getty’s camera list discriminates against obscure and less known brand names. It is funny to think that Getty lists the Olympus E3 (10.1 megapixels) which is a “more professional” body but not the “less professional” Olympus E30 (12.3 megapixels) which has higher resolution and is less expensive. Also when you compare the 12 bits, 10.1 megapixel, four thirds sensored Olympus E3 against the APS-C sized sensor, 15.1 megapixel, 14 bit, Canon EOS 500D, which sells for nearly half the price, you can’t help but laugh at Getty’s logic, of listing what appears to be a list of “prestigious” camera bodies rather than a list of “decent” performing camera bodies.
In closing I would like to share a quote I found, ‘an amateur photographer friend was invited to dinner and took along a few pictures. the hostess looked at his work and exclaimed, “these are very good. you must have an excellent camera.” later, as my friend was departing, he turned to the hostess and said, “that was a delicious meal. you must have some excellent pots.” ‘-simon evans. This sums up the major point I am trying to make. People take pictures, not cameras, and that is a point that is very hard to get across to some people who are obsessed with expensive cameras. I believe I have shown that Getty has created a list that they find to include “prestigious” cameras rather than “High performance” cameras (by includng “bare bones” Leica bodies but not cheaper “amature” bodies). Despite the fact they did not include the ealier Nikon “professional” camera bodies. I believe that I have made a point that Getty Images try’s to discriminate against “amature” camera bodies, dispite the image quality of some “amature” bodies being higher than some “professional” camera bodies (Canon EOS 1D vs Canon EOS 500D). In conclusion I believe that this list provided by Getty, is childish and nearsighted, it really brings them down as a “professional” stock agency to make such distinctions between cameras that have same or better image quality against those who appear more “prestigious”.
Getty Camera Ambiguity
One last point is that Getty said this about their list “At present, the following cameras are recommended for submissions to Getty Images, but there may be other professional-quality digital SLRs using RAW format that may also produce acceptable files.” This statement is ambiguous and might indicate that they do not follow this list as a law. Still I believe that it would make more sense for them to say that a camera needed certain criteria, rather than making a list of which camera is good and which is bad. For instance, my camera collage that I made that is up on my Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/billy_wilson/4030503232/ includes all cameras that use a large sensor (four thirds and larger), has RAW file format, and has a camera hot shoe for external flash guns. All of the cameras on that list I would consider to be of “Professional” quality, dispite the variance in price. Also, Getty Images made another ambiguous statement about cameras “All medium format backs (i.e. Phase One and Leaf) produce sufficiently high quality images to fall within Getty Images’ standard submission requirements.” I once heard soneone point out the fact that some of the older Digital backs have very low performance compared to most current digital SLRs. It just shows that since Digital backs are used on more “prestiguous” cameras, Getty Images does not even make a single disrimination between Digital backs! Does this mean they would accept a Kodak digital back on a medium format camera? But Getty didn’t list any Kodak sensored Nikon or Canon bodies, this further adds to their ambiguity.
(Canon Stock Photo)
What is a Canon L-Series lens? An L-Series lens is supposed to be Canon’s top of the line lens, but what makes an L-Series lens an L-Series lens? First of all, an L-series lens is almost always of high price, their prices range from $640 USD to $10,900 USD (nearly $100,000 USD if you include the discontinued EF 1200mm f/5.6). There is some overlap between non-L-Series and L-Series lenses though, for example;
1. Crop-Sensor Lenses (EF-S):
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ($770 USD)
EF-S 15-85mm f/ 3.5-5.6 IS USM ($720 USD)
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ($1,060 USD)
2. Fisheye Lenses:
EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye ($650 USD)
3. Diffractive Optics Lenses (DO):
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM (1,300 USD)
EF 400mm f4.0 DO IS USM ($5,820 USD)
4. Specialty Macro Lenses (MP-E):
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 macro ($950 USD)
5. Tilt-Shift Lenses (TS-E):
TS-E 90mm f/2.8 ($1,200 USD)
TS-E 45mm f/2.8 ($1,200 USD)
All of those lenses are excluded from being an L-Series lens for some reason or another.
1. EF-S Lenses: Canon does not brand any of their crop-sensor lenses as L-Series lenses. Canon seems to want to reserve their “High-end” badge to full-frame (EF) sensor lenses. This might show a lack of commitment on Canon’s behalf in suppling quality lenses for their “inferior” crop-sensor camera bodies. The lack of commitment to their crop-sensor bodies (APS-C) is also shown by the fact it took until recently to produce a quality APS-C crop sensor camera body. Nikon had done this from the start with their original Nikon D1 from 1999 which was a relatively expensive camera body ($5,850 USD). Olympus jumped into the race with their crop-sensor body (4/3 format) in 2003 with their original Olympus E1 ($2,200 USD). It took Pentax until 2009 to produce a quality APS-C camera body, the Pentax K7 ($1,400 USD), which was a significant and highly anticipated replacement to its predecessor the Pentax K20D ($1,300 USD). Canon only recently stepped in with their Canon EOS 7D ($1,700 USD) APS-C camera body, which is quite late in the race. Obviously Canon must have been feeling the pressure from competing models such as the Nikon D300 ($1,800 USD) which was eclipsing their XXD series of cameras. Now that Canon has a “professional” APS-C sensored camera body, it should be in their interest to produce quality glass for it. Which they have done so with their EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, but I am unsure of the quality of the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM because it is relatively new (little data known) and does not have a traditional focal length range that would appeal to professionals because of its relatively wide range from wide-angle to medium telephoto, it is also very slow at f/3.5-5.6. Canon should show the public some more commitment by offering some sort of brand engineering to boost its sales of lenses for its APS-C sensored bodies.
2. Fisheye Lenses: Canon does not count their EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye lens as an L-Series lens. This may be due to the nature of fisheye lenses distorting images and Canon does not want to have any of their top of the line lenses known for not having corrected distortions.
3. Diffractive Optics Lenses: For some unknown reason Canon does not include any DO (diffractive optics) lenses in their L-Series lineup. The only reasons I can think of for this is that their are some sort of legal issues with the technology? The DO lenses get a green ring around the end of the lens barrel opposed to the red ring around the lens barrel of L-Series lenses. One ineresting point is that the EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM is an off-white lens like all of the supertelephoto L-Series prime lenses.
4. Specialty Macro Lenses (MP-E): Canon does not include their manual focus MP-E 65mm f/2.8 Macro as an L-Series lens. This might be due to this lens being exclusively a special purpose lens since it is dedicated to only do macro work and nothing else. It probably does not share the same lens technologies as the L-Series lenses because of this.
5. Tilt-Shift Lenses (TS-E): these lenses much like the MP-E super macro are specialty lenses. These lenses are used for perspective control and creative depth of focus. They are also manual focus like the MP-E lens. These lenses probably do not share the same lens technologies as the L-Series lenses and are usually not counted as such. However, there are some new TS-E lenses that Canon recently brought out that are part of the L-Series lineup! These lenses are the TS-E 17mm f/4.0 and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 II, these lenses are very expensive at around $2,300 USD! This marketing move was probably done because Nikon also offers tilt-shift lenses that may be tempting to switch over to, so Canon updated their TS-E line with new L-Series designated lenses to hopefully suppress the urge to switch over or invest in Nikkor lenses.
Cosmetically an L-Series lens has a red ring around the end of the lens barrel to designate supreme quality and design. They are robust and strong, have impecible fit and finish, and are made to be used with ease. All current L-Series lenses have some degree of weather sealing. Some have better sealing than others and include a rubber gauntlet at the bottom of the lens, so that when mounted on a weather sealed camera such as the new Canon EOS 1D Mark IV ($4,780 USD) will create a weather sealed barrier between the lens and the body. L-Series lenses also feature Canon’s fast and quite ring-type USM motor that allows for quick, precise and full-time manual focusing overide.
Canon’s L-Series lineup includes special lens elements as their staple. These include aspherical, UD, and fluorite lens elements. These all work to suppress or eliminate chromatic abberations and purple fringing. Canon’s L-Series lineup are also build to the highest standards available ensuring that the lens performance results in sharp images.
There are some lenses that are cheaper that Canon’s L-Series lineup that are widely used by professionals. These include lenses such as the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro ($640 USD), EF 85mm f/1.8 USM ($380 USD), EF 50mm f/1.4 USM ($375 USD), and the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM ($470 USD). All of those lenses perform to the expectations of many working professionals. Many of the other cheaper Canon lenses are used by people trying to make their living from photography as well. It just goes to show you that it is not the lens that takes the picture, but the photographer.
Many people think that the Sony Alpha D-SLR A900 (MSRP= $3,000 USD) is a camera that directly competes with the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III (MSRP= $7,000 USD) and the Nikon D3X (MSRP= $8,000 USD). I think that it clearly falls short. First of all is the price, although not always an indication of lower quality, it is $4,000-$5,000 dollars cheaper, which in a way sounds like a great deal, until you realize that the Nikon D3X and the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III both have shutters rated for 300,000 actuations, while the Sony Alpha D-SLR A900 only has a shutter that is rated to endure 100,000 actuations. Three times the price of the A900 would be $9,000 USD, which is $1,000 more than the Nikon D3X. So if you are a professional looking to use their current investment for a long time then the Sony Alpha D-SLR A900 does not look like a great choice, unless you have some expensive Minolta A mount lenses already lying around.
Furthermore, the Sony Alpha D-SLR is greatly lacking in features that would constitute it as a professional camera body or even a competitor to the Nikon D700 (MSRP= $2,700 USD) or the Canon EOS 5D Mark II (MSRP= $3,100 USD). First of all, the Sony Alpha D-SLR A900 does not have weather sealing that would be on par with the high-end Nikon and Canon bodies. Secondly, the Sony Alpha D-SLR A900 only has 9 autofocus points, one of them being a cross-type, the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III has 45 autofocus points with 19 cross-type sensors and the Nikon D3X has 52 autofocus points with 15 of them being cross-type sensors. Third of all the Sony Alpha D-SLR A900 does not have 14-bit files like the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III and the Nikon D3X, instead it has only 12-bit files, which leads to a decrease in tonal range and image quality. Another feature that the Sony Alpha D-SLR A900 does not have is live-view, which is now considered to be a very important feature, one might argue that the Alpha’s 100% full-frame view-finder would compensate for this but I disagree, because live-view aids in more percise focusing in poor lighting conditions where the autofocus (remember there are only 9 points with one cross-type) would not be able to work. hence the features of the Sony Alpha D-SLR A900 are not up to par with professional camera bodies.
The Sony Alpha D-SLR A900 also does not have real world performance that is up to par with the Canon and Nikon professional bodies. For instance the Sony does not have as low noise at high ISOs.
The Sony Alpha D-SLR A900 does have some high selling points though, for instance, it has the highest resolution of any mass produced D-SLR body on the market (beats the Nikon D3X by 0.1MP, HA!). It has a big, bright viewfinder on par with the professional Canon and Nikon bodies. It offers all this on a sensor marginally smaller than full-frame (8.61cm instead of 8.64cm, well it also boasted highest resolution D-SLR ever by 0.1MP) at a price of $3,000 USD that more people can afford than the $7,000 USD Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III.
All in all, the Sony Alpha D-SLR is not a very promising D-SLR to first time buyers without any current lenses, but it is the best option to those who already have Minolta A mount lenses. Overall its available lens lineup does not match that of Canon or even Nikon in diversity (Visit my Minolta A mount collage for reference http://www.flickr.com/photos/billy_wilson/4195892665/), but can meet the satisfaction of many different types of photographers. Obviously the Sony Alpha D-SLR A900 is not at the level of the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III and the Nikon D3X, but is able to compete with price the likes of the Nikon D700 and Canon EOS 5D Mark II which are similarly priced.
Sony Alpha D-SLR A900 (MSRP= $3,000 USD)
Sony Alpha D-SLR A850 (MSRP= $2,000 USD)
Canon EOS 5D Mark II (MSRP= $3,100 USD)
Nikon D700 (MSRP= $2,700 USD)
PROFESSIONAL
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III (MSRP= $7,000 USD)
Nikon D3X (MSRP= $8,000 USD)
NOTE: you do not need a “professional” camera body to shoot photography professionaly. There are many who make their living even off of enty level cameras, so don’t take it personally. It is just nice to be able to purchase a “professional” body regardless of whether you are a professional photographer or not.
One intersting thing is that Sony recently released the Sony Alpha D-SLR A850, which sells for only $2,000 USD! The only thing missing from it is the 100% viewfinder coverage.
I was browsing Canon’s line-up of telephoto lenses, and as a rule, all of their telephoto primes are part of their “L-Series”, but I noticed that the Canon EF 400mm ƒ/4.0 DO IS USM, although it is an off-white lens just like all of the other super telephoto primes, it is not part of Canon’s “L-Series” line-up. I have no idea why, but at its price of $5,820 USD, you would expect quality that it known of Canon’s L-Series. The only other Canon lens that I know of that uses Diffractive Optics (DO) is the Canon EF 70-300mm ƒ/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, it costs around $1,300 USD and one would expect high quality for that price as well. All Canon L-Series lenses have a red ring around the end of the barrel but on the DO lenses there is a green ring around the end of the barrel. I wonder why Canon does not include their Diffractive Optics lenses as part of the L-Series?
I found it pretty interesting when I noticed that the Mamiya DM22 (MSRP $10,000 USD) has a sensor size exactly twice that of a full frame camera (8.64cm), the Mamiya’s sensor size is 17.28cm, which means in theory you should be able to pack twice the resolution into the sensor before digital noise becomes a problem due to smaller pixels. The Mamiya DM22 has basically the same resolution as the Canon EOS 5D MKII (21MP) the Mamiya has 22MP. The 5D MKII is known for its high resolution sensor, but is known to have slightly higher noise levels than models such as the Nikon D700, Nikon D3S, and the Nikon D3, all have the same full frame sensor (8.64cm) and the same resolution of 12.1MP. Since the Mamiya has a sensor 2X the size of full frame, it is able to have the same low noise pixel density as the Nikon D700/D3/D3S, and the same resolution as the Canon EOS 5D MKII.
Mamiya DM22, MSRP= $10,000 USD
Nikon D3, MSRP= $5,000 USD
Nikon D3S, MSRP= $5,200 USD
Canon EOS 5D MKII, MSRP= $2,700
I was just analyzing some Canon lenses and I noticed that it is cheaper to buy a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM lens, then it is to buy a Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM + a 2X teleconverter.
