Canon 30D

[Andrew Teakle]

Hey Mr Canon.

A lot of us put together a pretty detailed list of features we wanted to see on the replacement to the 20D. I don't ever remember a Direct Print button on that list. We wanted more pixels, weather sealing, improved AF, MLU, extended ISO (esp to 50), automatic sensor cleaning... oh but the larger LCD screen and ISO-in-viewfinder was included.

There are several features that are very welcome: spot metering, no new folders every 100 shots, Auto rotate vertical shots while displaying them horizontally, ISO in 1/3 stop increments, the ability to shoot another frame while in-camera noise reduction for long exposures is in progress.

Still, it's not enough to make me upgrade from my 20D for our reduced-frame SLR. Gee and I thought with the Nikon D200 announced recently (although with a few minor annoyances that Nikon are fixing) that the 30D would have at least 10MP.  

Happy shooting,

Andrew

[DarkPenguin]

Doug Kerr posted a pretty detailed list over at DPReview.com

Heck, posted in its entirety...

Here is another list of what's new in the Canon EOS 30D (compared to the 20D), from the Rob Galbraith site:
    * A new 2.5-inch, 230,000 pixel rear LCD monitor with wide viewing angle

    * Canon's more flexible Picture Style menu, which replaces the Parameters menu of the 20D

    * Sharpening of in-camera JPEGs can be turned off, which is a first for a Canon entry-level or midrange digital SLR
    * ISO 100-1600 is now selectable in 1/3 stop increments
    * ISO can be set without taking one's eye away from the viewfinder

    * Increased burst depth: 11 frames for RAW CR2 shooting, 30 for Large Fine JPEG and 9 for RAW+JPEG
    * A more-durable shutter that's rated for 100,000 cycles

    * A slightly-shortened mirror blackout time of 110ms; Canon's specification for shutter lag remains the same as the 20D at 65ms

    * Viewfinder information now includes a dedicated Flash Exposure Lock (FEL) indicator

    * Switchable High-Speed Continuous (5 fps) and Low-Speed Continuous (3 fps) frame rate settings are now included
    * An Auto setting in the Long Exposure Noise Reduction Custom Function

    * The ability, like several more-pricey Canon digital SLRs, to simultaneously apply long exposure noise processing to one picture while capturing another
    * The addition of a 3.5% spot metering mode
    * 0.15 second camera startup time
    * A more-precise 4-increment battery charge indicator

    * Reduced energy compensation, for a promised improvement of 10% more frames per charge

    * No more new folders created every 100 photos; in the 30D, a folder can hold 9999 photos

    * A new automatic rotation option that enables verticals to not be rotated on the rear display but appear rotated in compatible browser software on the computer
    * The ability to zoom in on a photo in Quick Review mode

    * During playback, the image+shooting data screen will display either an RGB or Brightness histogram, file size and will optionally display AF markings
    * Improved Jump function
    * Refined multicontroller operation

    * More-detailed error code information, which now appears on the rear LCD monitor (in addition to the top LCD panel); the camera settings information screen will also display Images Failed to Transfer when the WFT-E1/E1A is in use and a transmit error occurs
    * More ways to wake the camera up from an Auto Power Off snooze
    * Direct image transfer from the camera to a computer using the PTP protocol

    * A revamped software package that includes Digital Photo Professional (DPP) 2.1, EOS Utility 1.0 (a new image transfer, camera settings and camera control application), Image Browser 5.6 (Mac) and ZoomBrowser EX 5.6 (Windows); DPP adds user-settable noise reduction and support for RAW files from the Canon EOS D2000 and D6000

    * New and potentially useful direct printing capabilities (plus a dedicated direct print/image transfer button)

Note that a 3.5% metering spot would be expected to have 62% the diameter of the 9% ("Partial") spot.

For those who missed it elsewhere, the pixel dimensions are the same as on the EOS 20D, as is apparently the burst rate.

Note also that. wlthough the ISO sensitivity value appears in the finder as it is being set, it does not appear there at other times.
This new machine is indeed "the 20D N".

Best regards,

Doug

Visit The Pumpkin, a library of my technical articles on photography, optics, and other topics:
http://doug.kerr.home.att.net/pumpkin

'Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler.'

There are a lot of changes.  Resolution is not one of them.

[paladin]

High on my list of desirables for the 30D was/is a quieter shutter.  The mirror slap of the 20D is too much like the sound of a 12 gauge being racked according to most birds I have tried to photograph.  :-)

[benInMA]

If you've got a 20D I doubt you were the market for the 30D.

Face it, none of those features you want were going to take you from a bad photographer to a good photographer or from a good photographer to a great photographer.

The # of people who actually care about this whole Canon/Nikon thing to the point where they care about the D200 enough to dump a 20D has got to be tiny.   Camera collectors as opposed to photographers.

[Pelao]

If you've got a 20D I doubt you were the market for the 30D.

Face it, none of those features you want were going to take you from a bad photographer to a good photographer or from a good photographer to a great photographer.

The # of people who actually care about this whole Canon/Nikon thing to the point where they care about the D200 enough to dump a 20D has got to be tiny.   Camera collectors as opposed to photographers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58740\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Amen

The 30D does have some nice improvements, which shows awareness of customer needs. Also note that the price is good. So a great camera has become better. The 20D needs to be viewed in the context of the entire lineup, from XT up. A very nice family...

From a competitive viewpoint it may be that Canon is interested to see what Sony comes up with, since the latter stated they want a serious chunck of the DSLR market.

[kbolin]

Amen

The 30D does have some nice improvements, which shows awareness of customer needs. Also note that the price is good. So a great camera has become better. The 20D needs to be viewed in the context of the entire lineup, from XT up. A very nice family...

An awareness of customer needs?  Maybe for the most part but where is the MLU and why do we need a print button on a camera?  I just bought a new cell phone and it's larger than the last one I bought 5 years ago... why... damn built in camera.  I don't want a phone to take pictures and I don't want my camera to print images.    

Anyway... I'm glad they didn't make huge changes.  I had my heart set on the 5D and if they came out with something drastic I would have wondered.  It's clear they will continue down a path with a reduced chip in the 20D/30D/40D? to satisfy a market segment that doesn't want or is willing to pay for the full frame of a 5D or 1DSMII.

I have a 10D and 20D.... the real debate is whether I will keep the 20D I have.  I HATE THAT SHUTTER.  I might blow out the 10D, convert the 20D to IR, and buy 2 5D's.    

Hummm.

Cheers,
Kelly

[61Dynamic]

The megapixel rating didn't increase and I have to say I'm glad it didn't. It's possible that this signifies the death (or the beginning of the death) of the push for more megapixels and a stronger focus on improving the camera. If the MP rating increased, then the noise performance would suffer and I think the 20D is an excellent compromise between pixel-count and pixel-quality.

The direct-print button is pure idiocy. That should be a MLU button and they should darn-well know that by now considering how strong the demand has been.

[Lin Evans]

An awareness of customer needs?  Maybe for the most part but where is the MLU and why do we need a print button on a camera?  I just bought a new cell phone and it's larger than the last one I bought 5 years ago... why... damn built in camera.  I don't want a phone to take pictures and I don't want my camera to print images.   

Anyway... I'm glad they didn't make huge changes.  I had my heart set on the 5D and if they came out with something drastic I would have wondered.  It's clear they will continue down a path with a reduced chip in the 20D/30D/40D? to satisfy a market segment that doesn't want or is willing to pay for the full frame of a 5D or 1DSMII.

I have a 10D and 20D.... the real debate is whether I will keep the 20D I have.  I HATE THAT SHUTTER.  I might blow out the 10D, convert the 20D to IR, and buy 2 5D's.   

Hummm.

Cheers,
Kelly
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm confused - the 20D has mirror lockup - are you saying the 30D doesn't?

Lin

[DiaAzul]

I'm confused - the 20D has mirror lockup - are you saying the 30D doesn't?

Lin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58792\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

30D does have mirror lock up - just like all Canon cameras, however, just like all Canon cameras - it doesn't have a mirror lock-up button.

Instead Canon users have to navigate menus, sub menus and customer functions to activate and de-activate the feature which takes time and also increase the risk of being in mirror lock up mode just at the point when the ultimate 'decisive moment' occurs (been there, done that).

The only thing it still doesn't or can't do is make a decent expresso - but then you can't take a picture with a Starbucks.

[dwdallam]

High on my list of desirables for the 30D was/is a quieter shutter.  The mirror slap of the 20D is too much like the sound of a 12 gauge being racked according to most birds I have tried to photograph.  :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA--that was very clever. It sounds like someone slapping a washboard over their knee to me.

[dwdallam]

From what I have heard, this new 20D is a vast disappointment. I like the "crop" factor because my lenses have more reach. I hate the viewfinder and small LCD though. I also would have liked more pixels, but I KNEW that was going to pose a problem, and here is why:

Problem One: Let's say we got a 20D with 10 MPs or 12 like we wanted. How much is that going to take away from the 5D market?

Problem Two: The 5D is coming down already. My friend bought one yesterday on Amazon, warranty, sealed box, from a power seller for 2650.00 US. So increase the pixel count too much, and you lose either 20D or 5D market share. In other wards,again, they compete pricewise and pixel wise when MP are increased beyond 8.2.

Problem Three: Increase Pixel count, lose burst rate depth. Sports photographers don't want that. Yes, some people will upgrade for the increased burst rate, but those will be few.

The way I see it, Canon has gotten itself into a pickle in two ways--one with the 20D and 5D competing if they improve the 20D too much, and then with Nikon, with the 200D's 10 MP count. If you are on the market for your first DSLR, that Nikon is sounding pretty fat, and the 20D pretty flat, pixel wise.

Agree--printer button on a DSLR?  Idiocy.

I think maybe the 20D series is going more "prosumer" than "pro." Think about that. Perhaps the 20D will replace the Rebel XT series. If they could get the 20D down to sub 1000.00 US, that would be a good deal, and would eclipse Nikon's offering at that level.

I am considering the 5D, but I hate to lose the zoom factor. I would end up having to buy another lens, probably the 100-400. And, I'd probably be using my 70-200 as much as my 24-70, which means more lens swapping.

The reason I wanted more pixels was for 20x30 blowups. They look pretty good now even at 8MPs, but if you need to crop, you lose too much. Sure, you can still print at 16x20. But even at 12 x 18, you want as much pixels as possible.

I thought about the 20D upgrade, and I was pretty much right--we aint gonna get the 20D with 13 MPs. (5D is 12.

Bottom line is this, which Canon will miss out on: Nikon has the same level camera with more MPs, sorry Canon. I don't think new photo enthusiasts will opt for less MPs.

People with 20Ds are not going to upgrade for a printer button, even though the other items are nice to have. I'd rather have seen ISO 50.

I think this is the best Canon could have done in spite of Nikon's giving them the upper cut with the 200D, and then Canon coming out with the 5D. On the other hand, Nikon gets the upper cut with Canon's 5D in that level of camera.

As for me--I don't know what to do now. I want more MPs really badly, but I'm not looking forward to buying a new $1500.00 US 100-400L glass with the 5D to get near the 320MM I have now with the 70-200 (and F2.8 at that!). Even with the 1.4 extender, I'll only get 280mm.

I think I'll wait for Canon to upgrade its whole line before making any decisions. I think it only has one more to go, the 1Ds!  haha

As for Sony, which someone mentioned, sure--Sony is capable of building a supreme 5D level camera. It would also probably take Zeiss glass. It would definitely include everything you want in that level camera, and probably have 20MPS too knowing Sony. However, if you do some research, Sony was near bankruptcy not too long ago due to its former CEO taking it into too many areas at the same time, one of which was the Prosumer SLR market-- F717, F828. Those cameras were never hot items and never marketed well because of their price. Technically, they were ahead of their time, but just too expensive for that level camera. I think Sony is backing away from new markets as part of its restructuring, and going back to its staples in the market--digicams, TVs, etc.

Now if the 5D gets down to 1900.00 US, that would be interesting. Like I said, it's already down to 2650.00 if you shop it. They way I see it, there is just this huge Canon gap now between the 20D and the 5D given Nikons ballbuster 200D. Is there really a market for the 5D? Should have Canon just upgraded the 20D to 13MPs, plus the other improvements, and left out the 5D? This is a strange combination to me.

[jani]

Maybe the 30D is more of an upgrade for 10D owners?

Plenty of 10D owners didn't upgrade to the 20D because they thought it wasn't a decent enough step up, similarly to how many 20D owners won't upgrade to the 30D.

I think the 30D is more of a clear upgrade choice for 10D (or even D60!) owners, perhaps also 300D owners.

[macgyver]

Speaking as someone who has a 300D and has recently started working for a college newspaper, the 30D is looking better and better all the time.  What was the price again, 1600 USD?

Anyway, while I know this is primarily a landscape fourm, I think that this camera will continue to have just as much sway in the sports and wildlife world as the 20D.  (unless all thoughs "3D" rumors are true in which case this thing's up a creek...)

Do wish it was weather sealed though.

[benInMA]

I think they had to bring the price of the 30D down cause I would expect the 5D MkII or whatever comes out a year from now to also be reduced in price.   If that camera comes in at $2000-2500 it would be too close to a $1500 30D.

People who think they "need" the crop factor.   What are you doing that is so specialized you need to use >300mm constantly?   Are you only a bird photographer?

Lots of people seem to think they "need" super tele lenses all the time, it's so hard for me to understand, that is a pretty small subset of pictures.   If you've only had digicams and 1.6x crop cameras you might be real surprised if you got a FF camera and kept the same lenses, you'll see things differently and you might start visualizing your pictures differently.

I have a 300mm prime, on my 10D it was really nice for animals and such, but I still *barely* used it.  99% of my shots for sightseeing, people, landscape, etc.. would be between 28-85mm.

I think it works better at 300mm, that is a more useful focal length then 480mm.   Still I've only put it on the 5D 3-4 times.  The only sports I've really photographed are bicycling, motorcycle racing, and car racing.   For bicycle racing I've only used the 300mm lens once.   For motorcycle racing 300mm is perfect if I have good track access, effective 480mm was too long IMO with good track access.  For car racing with poor access the 480mm effective was about right, but if I'd had a press pass I would rather be using 300mm on the 5D for sure.   For those sports 3fps has been plenty too, so either camera works fine.

[jani]

People who think they "need" the crop factor.   What are you doing that is so specialized you need to use >300mm constantly?   Are you only a bird photographer?

Lots of people seem to think they "need" super tele lenses all the time, it's so hard for me to understand, that is a pretty small subset of pictures.   If you've only had digicams and 1.6x crop cameras you might be real surprised if you got a FF camera and kept the same lenses, you'll see things differently and you might start visualizing your pictures differently.

That works the other way around too, you know.

What basically happens when you work with a 1.6x FOV crop camera, is that the working range of zoom lenses change drastically.

For instance, the 24-70 is no longer a wide angle lens in its wide end, and it's a decent normal to tele zoom instead. That's often useful, although I would prefer for it to be 24-105.

The 70-200 L lenses behave as 112-320mm equivalent zooms, with a quality that is unsurpassed by lenses with a similar coverage for "full frame".

I'm very happy when photographing e.g. sports events or doing street photography, that I can get that extra bit of distance while retaining both the zoom capability and excellent image quality.

In landscape photography, some scenes "demand" a longer reach, and the 1.6 FOV factor helps create the illusion of a "better" DOF.

Other examples probably abound.

But speaking for myself, I'd often prefer to have a 5D or 1Ds MkII for much of my work.

[benInMA]

I've definitely thought 70-200 works better then 100-310 or so.  A 24-70 lens is ruined putting it on a crop body IMO, on a FF body you've got wide to short tele, on the crop body you pick up a negligible amount of telephoto but you totally lose your wide angle, necessitating a lens change if you need/want W/A.   The whole point of normal zooms to me is having one lens that does wide, normal, and telephoto.  Having normal, telephoto, and a little more telephoto is not nearly as appealing.

Lenses like the 17-40 get killed on the crop body too.   I can't believe how much more useful that lens is on a 5D.

100-310 puts you much more solidly in need of IS, a tripod, etc, etc.. and IMO it's not as flexible of a range.  I am the wrong person to talk about this though, I don't even own a 70-200 as I'm not crazy about the size and obtrusiveness of the f/2.8 models.

The only way I see it being worthwhile is if you NEED 500+ mm reach, once you get beyond 400mm the lenses get so huge and so expensive I can understand carrying a crop body just for that.

But other then going out shooting birds, etc.. I never need/want that kind of reach.   And it would be kind of pointless anyway cause I don't know enough about birds to exploit that kind of gear.

I was seriously thinking of renting the 1.4x teleconverter to use on vacation last week in case I had any opportunities to shoot birds, deer, etc.. (Call it that "need" after losing the crop body) But I didn't bother and I never needed it so I'm glad I didn't spend the money to rent it.  I might still get one but I can definitely think of other stuff I want more, like a T/S lens.

[DarkPenguin]

People who think they "need" the crop factor.   What are you doing that is so specialized you need to use >300mm constantly?   Are you only a bird photographer?

I put my lens collection together based on using it on a 1.6x camera.   If I switch I end up throwing out at least 3 lenses and, for all practical purposes with the way I like to work, I'd end up throwing them all out.

[benInMA]

You weren't shooting film first?   Or you already re-jiggered your lens collection once to fit 1.6x?

I had most of my lenses before I ever got a digital body.  I pretty much just suffered through having the 1.6x, I saw it as too expensive to get different lenses to match 1.6x given the quality/cost of the EF-S lenses.

[DarkPenguin]

My lens set from 35mm days is long gone.  I still have a 50mm macro from those days but it was a mistake (Can you say "No working distance.") until I put it on a 1.6x camera.

[macgyver]

People who think they "need" the crop factor.   What are you doing that is so specialized you need to use >300mm constantly?   Are you only a bird photographer?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry, but that's a very short sighted comment.  You can't only considering your point of view.  I shoot primarily people, followed by animals and then sports/landscapes.  As often as not, the 1.6 factor is extremely helpful when shooting people.  Just as much so as animals.  Consider this, I want to shoot a musician in a poorly lit coffee house.  There's no real way to get close with out impacting the experiance of the other patrons (something that I try to avoid at all costs), and flash is too distracting.  Therefore, I need a longer lens with a faster aperature.  Now what's going to be less obtrusive in such a setting?  A 300 2.8 on a FF body or a 200 2.8 or 70-200 2.8 on a 1.6?

That's just one example, but I think you get my point.

Now, really, if we all (yes, EVERYONE in this fourm, myself included) could get past the point of view that one size is better than the other, we would be set.  I wouldn't want a 5D or 1DsII for my sports or wildlife photography.  Nor even for some of my people shooting.  Each must make their own desicion and not constantly rail agaisnt the desicion of others.

Given, I've shot 99% of my time with a 1.6 body, and you may be right, if I changed perhaps how I see things would change too.  I'm open to that.  That 5D is still one nice camera  .

There you go, my thoughts.  Hope that didn't sound confrontational or anything.