Canon camera noise control already good for past 3 - 4 years.

70D is likely to show slight improvement but not to the extent of what a 6D / 5D3 can do.

Yes but I believe that the quality from the 70D would not be far behind.

I would say two things about 70d noise at compared to 1d,5d.... first as everybody noted its  sensor size as compared to ff traditionally bigger sensor will always have the advantage when compared to crop of the same generation...but the 70d have a new gen of sensor maybe? but because of my second point if canon makes the 70d MUCH superior to the 1dx/c,5d3,6d  in term of noise and with the good focus the 70d it MIGHT eat in to some of the sales for the higher end model so I'm afraid canon will not do that...of cause this is all my opinion so let's wait and see lah...

you guys expecting too much. APS-C is APS-C.

It will never give you FF type of noise control. It will always be a stop or 2 behind.

Question is whether you pixel peep to see the difference.

ahhh now that's the key.

No wonder I don't see it, my exposures don't go off by that many stop, that's insane.

[attachmentid=3541682]

ISO 2500. Pull shadow bar to max. Donno whether if it's same as your LR shadow bar to 100%.

If the area is pitch black then it's way under exposed already. That's why I always check exposure on shadows, midtones and highlights first. If the difference between shadows and highlights is more than 3 stops then it's time to use filters or bracket your shots.

U can always stack them in PS and use layer mask to merge it or merge all the files as a 32 bits TIFF to edit in Lightroom.

JPEG are useless to edit. Learn to shoot in RAW and then process them in PS or LR before exporting them as JPG.

ISO 1600 | 1/200

vs

ISO 800 | 1/80

like that?

normally I just set ISO first, then decide on shutter speed.

but if shutter speed is too low then only fix shutter speed then ISO.

Indeed this thread has a tendency to slow down and then pick up momentum only to slow down again.

[attachmentid=3546481]

I was thinking of pre-ordering this lens but I decided to hold my purchase to see how the 1st batch of lenses fair.. I'm always skeptical about the QC for 3rd party lenses

Sample pictures from pre-production copies were very impressive though. Given a choice, would you guys get this lens or a 2nd hand Canon 17-55 IS?

question is - how much sharpness is sufficient for one?

to me, I've no sharpness issue with every lens i have. not picky on sharpness either.

i place very high emphasis on other factors like focusing speed, focusing accuracy and image stabilization.

Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is interesting but I wouldn't spend RM 3k on lens that I can't do handheld video, nor without image stabilization when I'm taking photos at areas with lesser light.

Yes, I am pampered by the IS on my 15-85, and the wide. The only now the only thing that can convince me to change is a 15-85 f2.8 IS.

So far this is only possible alternative is found on a full-frame set, FF body with Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC USD.

1. IS useless for moving subjects? try panning a speeding car, a bird in flight or a child running across the field.

2. the f2.8 vs f4 IS discussion never ends because they have their pros and cons but if you look at the discussion above - we're talking about 17-55 f2.8 IS and Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC.

the discussion never ends when the aperture is the same but when aperture is the same - IS wins.

3. 18-35 is not required but it's super helpful. that's why there are many lenses that range with IS. The only one without IS is the EF 24-70 f2.8, which I believe the IS version will come in the future.

4. what is normal shooting? if normal shooting then f1.8 also not required.

color nowadays subjective. even if the lens' reproduction isn't good, color profile is there. stuff like CA? Software fix.

but usually photos people don't care so much of sharpness and slight blur. they WILL complain if "eh my photo no in there wan?"

the most dreaded one is when the one paying the photography fee is not in there. haha. well there are cases like that.

I hope that with Tamron's 24-70 VC USD, Canon will price the lenses down a bit. the introduction of Canon 24-70 F4 IS left a bad taste in people's mouth, although the lens is actually very good.

2 problem
- price
- f4
It has macro feature but very few people can't justify paying a premium over the already good 24-105 F4 L just to get shorter range, smaller lens and macro ability.

colour rendition as in how '3D look' you photos have. err, i hope you guys know what i am talking about. try shooting portrait with 70-200 L, then 100 macro L, then the carl zeiss 100 macro

it's a zoom lens. how would it be more fair to compare with primes just because of aperture?

a zoom is always compared to a zoom.

yes, no doubt that 18-35 is like getting 18mm, 24mm, 28mm, 30mm and 35mm f1.8 prime all in one.

anyway f1.8 is about 1.33 stop brighter than f2.8.

if it's going to be good enough for f1.8 usually it's good enough for f2.8, and it it's bad for f2.8 then it's usually quite bad for the f1.8.

there are very few occasions where that 1.3-stop makes a lot of difference.

for me, I see the 18-35 f1.8 is great if you're shooting in daylight (maybe need to put a stopper for some scenes) and you're shooting photo only, or video on tripod, slider, stabilizer

handheld video, nope. handheld photo of a dark scene - nope.

for example, just want to handheld a scene of KL skyline.

if the setting was f/1.8 | ISO 800 | 1/200
the setting for the 17-55 f2.8 with 3-stop IS can go as low as f/2.8 | ISO 800 | 1/25 for better ambient light (and motion trail).

either way no lens is a wrong lens but it's only wrong when it doesn't suit your purpose. so take note of the points mentioned on the 18-35 f1.8
RM 2.5k for non-serious shooting. costly oh.