Canon 30D

[benInMA]

A coffee house?

You need 300mm in a coffee house?  Is that so you can sit in the back and shoot away as opposed to sitting right in front of the stage and using a 50-100mm perspective for a much more natural look?

That is fine, everyone has a different idea.   I hate seeing images of people that are overly telephoto because the photographer kept great distance.   Having a longer lens is never a substitute for getting closer to the action IMO.

Just my perspective, which is completely different then yours in this case.   I will always prefer the images from the photographer who got good access to the subject (performer in this case) and takes the much more intimate normal or short telephoto image over the long telephoto image from the photographer who stayed in the background.

A big pet peeve for me here would be wedding & event photos shot with a 100-300mm perspective with the photographer being seriously separated from the action and not interacting with his subjects.   I find those seriously inferior to the photos shot with a 50-135mm perspective at 1/3 the shooting distance, because the photographer shooting the shorter lenses is interacting with his subjects instead of shooting like a paparazzi on the sidelines.

I think the crop bodies and the ease of using long telephoto perspectives has caused a serious shift in how people visualize their photos, and created a much larger sense of detachment from the subject due to keeping greater subject distance, losing interaction with the subject, and losing the sense of intimacy a photo taken at shorter distances has.

Of course this has only happened in amateur photography and the lower ends of the market.  The best published photos still appear to be shot at wide, normal, and short telephoto perspectives.

BTW comparing the 300/2.8 to the 70-200/2.8 is fairly silly, they are almost exactly the same size, and the 70-200 is a hair heavier.  Neither will be more obtrusive as you would be keeping the exact same subject distance.   I consider both to be extremely obtrusive though, at least in the Canon system, people see "big white giant lens" and they absolutely react to that.

[macgyver]

BenInMa, I don't disagree with your point, what I am trying to get across is that from time to time a longer reach is required.  In these cases the 1.6 is a great boon.

I also do not disagree with your statement of photographers losing touch with the subject by being farther away.  (Robert Capa quote anyone?)

All I am trying to say is that to criticize people who prefer the 1.6 crop because you do not is a bad way of looking at things.  yes, some lenes work better on a FF, some better on a 1.6.  As Jani pointed out, its a two way street.

Also, I would disagree that the 70-200 and 300 are closely similar to others. (Thank you for ignoring the 200 prime point)  Having used both in public fourms, I know there is a difference in who people react to them.

Also, you are right about the coffee house, I've had to do that, and while not fun or preferable, its quite funny.  YOu should see it.

[boku]

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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58822\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly - I did that! I sold 4 lenses and bought 4 when I got the 5D. Fortunately, my lenses got top dollar on eBay, so other than hassle, I recouped most of my $. (BTW, I have always found that decent L glass retains value - that's one of the reasons to not be shy about the acquistion cost).

I did keep my 20D for 2 reasons:
1) walkaround duty with my 17-85 IS.
2) extra reach with my new 400mm f/5.6 - don't need a TC.

The 30D is not meant to get 20D folks to upgrade, it is just an improved model to offer the market for those looking for a mid-range DSLR.

[macgyver]

Bob, this is off topic, but if I may ask, how do you like that 400 5.6?  I'm thinking of getting one between June and July.

[benInMA]

Also, I would disagree that the 70-200 and 300 are closely similar to others. (Thank you for ignoring the 200 prime point)  Having used both in public fourms, I know there is a difference in who people react to them.

Also, you are right about the coffee house, I've had to do that, and while not fun or preferable, its quite funny.  YOu should see it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry, that was a typo.  I meant the 300/4 and the 70-200/2.8.   Those two are almost exactly the same size/weight.   The 300/2.8 is hugely bigger, I agree.

Personally in those indoor situations I want to be using a 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2, etc.. I'd take all of those over the big white lenses or the 200/2.8.

I'm not saying the crop never comes in useful.  It's just there are way more people who have only had the crop then there are people who have had both.  I've had both, I think the need for the crop tends to be heavily exaggerrated on the web.   To me the crop never felt like I was gaining anything unless I was trying to shoot beyond 400mm, at any other time it felt like I was giving something up.

[Lin Evans]

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.

snip
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL - not only "bird" photographers need > 300mm constantly.  There are many types of photography. Landscape photography generally requires the wider end of the FOV. Sports photography uses somewhat the middle to longer end (300mm - 400mm). Wildlife photographers definitely need the telephoto end and the 1.6x crop factor is a major plus.

I have seven dSLR's ranging from full frame to 1.7x crop factor. I get my best wildlife frame from the crop factor cameras. My 1DS stays at home for wildlife frames and my 1D Mark II, D2X and Sigma SD10 (1.3x, 1.5x, 1.7x respectively) get the brunt of the work. You can "never" have too much focal length for some types of wildlife photography. I declined to buy the 5D or 1DS Mark II and opted for the D2X for the primary reason of the boost from the 1.5x (2X for half resolution with increased framerate). With a crop factor camera I can get frames with a 100-400L IS or an 80-400 VR hand held which would take a 600 F4, and a very heavy tripod and head to get with my full frame camera. Even the 16.7 megapixel 1DS Mark II looses out in pixels per frame when cropped 60 percent to get to a 20D's FOV with same lens.

If you've ever attempted to carry a 600 F4 or a Sigma 300-800 F5.6 with a substantial tripod and head over 13,000 foot mountain passes to shoot goats, sheep or high country wildlife you would understand why the crop factor cameras are appealing. For those who think you can simply "crop" the higher resolution images from the full frame cameras and get equal quality as with the crop factor sensors with the lighter lenses - think again. When the full frame sensors reach 22 megapixels or so, then we will have some equality with the 12 megapixel D2x - until that time it's crop factor and high quality, lighter optics even with teleconverters for me.

Best regards,

Lin

[BJL]

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]

The $2,000 price difference 30D->5D is plenty of reason for the great majority of DSLR buyers to "need" the smaller format. Hence the 5% or less market share that 35mm format digital is stuck with, probably a smaller share now than when the 1Ds first came out.

Also, it is not only at >300mm that the 30D has an advantage in telephoto reach: its higher absolute resolution (more l/mm, from its 6.4 micron pixel spacing vs 8.2 for the 5D) increases reach (or pixel count) at any telephoto focal length. For example, 200mm with the 30D matches the reach of about 260mm on a 5D or 1DMkII. To put it another way, when a certain focal length gives the FOV you want with the 20D/30D, using the same focal lengths with the 5D and cropping to get that same FOV leaves you with only 5MP.

Macro photography also benefits from higher absolute sensor resolution. That is because in many case, macro lenses for either camera will have the same maximum magnification, and with any subject that fits in the 20D/30D FOV, you get 8MP from the 20D/30D vs 5MP on the same subject after cropping from the 5D.

In either case, $3,000+ is a lot to pay in situations where the result is a "5MP crop".

[kbolin]

Well for those still using D30's you can upgrade to the 30D and the significant other won't suspect a thing.    

[boku]

Bob, this is off topic, but if I may ask, how do you like that 400 5.6?  I'm thinking of getting one between June and July.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just got it - too soon to tell, but it seems like a very archaic design. (At least for the money.) No IS. Riveted metal nameplate. Small tripod foot.

I really would like to see Canon produce a 200-400 f/4 IS L zoom.

That shouldn't be a problem though. I'll be shooting with it in March. The current lineup:

[Andrew Teakle]

I really would like to see Canon produce a 200-400 f/4 IS L zoom.
).

I also agree with dwdallam that it is difficult to find a niche for a larger MP 30D in their lineup now, but I actually would have been tempted to upgrade to a 10-12MP 1.6x SLR if they'd built it. Especially with the uprated feature set they did design. I know it's only a marginal increase in pixels horizonatlly and vertically, but if they'd been able to maintain the noise characteristics of the 20D, I'd be there. Oh well, there may be a 40D in 18 months...

Happy shooting next month,

Andrew

[dwdallam]

Yep, I agree with your logic 100%. Although teh 10D owners would have gotten more MPs, from 6-8 with the 20D upgrade. Current 20D owners get a refined 20D, and that is all. For me, incremental ISO settings are a waste of time past the traditional increments, especially when an ISO of 50 would have been more useable. An ability to cut light when you need it IN CAMERA without going to ND filters would be an incredible thing indeed.

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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[dwdallam]

You are comparing a 400 prime with a 400 tele though, and the tele is MUCH more useful, especially when it is an effective 112-320mm, which is what I get with my 70-200 and 20D. Check that range, and all at 2.8 if I need it! When I go to the marina, for instance, and I'm shooting off the dock--for stability in a night shot--to the end of the dock where fisherman are offloading their catch, I need 310mm. When I change subjects to something a little closer in the marina, I need 150mm. It's a sweet, sweet deal. There is nothing more frustrating than needing 80mm, and not having it. True, if I needed 80mm, I could crop it and still maintain better or equal pixel counts using a 5D. But one of the ideas of having more pixels is to be able to print larger, like 20-30, not to go back to 8MPs from having to crop all of the time. It's frustrating.

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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[BJL]

I haven't used a 600 f/4, but it can't be much bigger than the 200-400 f4.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58859\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh yes it can!
The 200-400 f/4 VR is  a mere 7.2lb and 14" long,
the Nikon 600/4 is 10.7lb, 17" (even without the VR of the 20-400)
the Canon 600/4 VR is 11.8lb, 18" long.
But I heartily agree with your main point; higher pixel density allowing less long lenses is what I prefer telephoto work.


P. S. Canon users and enthusiasts should calm themselves by comparing the 20D->30D update to the D60->10D one, and not expecting a very good sensor to be replaced by an even better one only 1 1/2 years later. Sensor technology has probably not increased enough to justify a new sensor: no DSLR sensor has been replaced in less than two years as far as I know, with three years about average). Also, adding more MP would also require a new, faster processor (or lower frame rates, or two processors as used in the 1D and 1Ds). For example, a 12.7MP 30D with DIGIC2 processor would probably be limited to the same 3fps as the 5D.

P. P. S. The 30D is not offered as an upgrade for owners of 20D's, none of which is more than 1 1/2 years old!  It is offered to those who do not yet have a 20D, offering a somewhat more attractive option to the 20D that they might have been thinking about, or weighing against alternatives like the D200.

[Piece]

Here's an interview with Canon USA's Director of Media and Customer Relations.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1140633307.html

Seems that too many pixels on such a small sensor pushed them away from more MP.  Fair enough.

[jani]

Here's an interview with Canon USA's Director of Media and Customer Relations.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1140633307.html

Seems that too many pixels on such a small sensor pushed them away from more MP.  Fair enough.

I find the following quote far more interesting:

IR: How much more resolution does Canon think is necessary or desirable to match the resolution potential of its high quality lenses?

Westfall: We don't look at the issue of image quality in quite that way. In fact, we are more concerned at present with raising the image quality of our lenses to take maximum advantage of the performance characteristics of our current and future CMOS image sensors. As the EOS system evolves, overall image quality will continue to improve, not only in terms of lenses, but also in terms of image sensors and image processors.

This appears to imply that Canon has heard Canon users' calls for better lenses.

I hope that this not only means re-vamped 85mm etc., but also new WA lenses and other lenses with less light fall-off.  And a new EF 200mm f/1.8L II IS, please.

[dwdallam]

All they said is "We are going to keep trying to improve both lenses and processors." Duh. Yah think? The only problem with that is how much more can glass be improved without running into physical limitations that greatly outweigh economy of research compared to the practical improvements of the glass? We may not be tehre yet, but there are physical limitations to all things. You can't ever make gold as strong as steel, nor steel as electrically conductive as gold.

I find the following quote far more interesting:

IR: How much more resolution does Canon think is necessary or desirable to match the resolution potential of its high quality lenses?

Westfall: We don't look at the issue of image quality in quite that way. In fact, we are more concerned at present with raising the image quality of our lenses to take maximum advantage of the performance characteristics of our current and future CMOS image sensors. As the EOS system evolves, overall image quality will continue to improve, not only in terms of lenses, but also in terms of image sensors and image processors.

This appears to imply that Canon has heard Canon users' calls for better lenses.

I hope that this not only means re-vamped 85mm etc., but also new WA lenses and other lenses with less light fall-off.  And a new EF 200mm f/1.8L II IS, please.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[benInMA]

The new dpreview review of the D200 shows some of the pointless nature of putting more megapixels into the 30D.   Barely any difference from 8->10->12mp going from 20D -> D200 -> D2x

Before worrying about Canon redesigning wide angle lenses and such people need to step back and think about whether or not the light fall off and corner issues are actually a real issue.   IMO they are not.   Tests can show it but even the worst aren't that bad and don't necessarily translate to real world problems.  e.x. the Dpreview test showing 40% with the 24-70 f/2.8 wide open.   40% is less then one stop isn't it?   Not really going to be an issue in most shots.   You're just not going to shoot that lens wide open against bright uniform backgrounds very often, especially at the wide end.

The biggest area IMO you are going to find yourself shooting near wide open with bright uniform backgrounds is portraits.  And most of the good portrait lenses are very very good in the corners.

One other question... how big is the Nikon mount vs. the Canon mount?   Looking at pictures of the 30D with a 50mm lens and a D200 with a 50mm lens the Canon mount looks enormous compared to the Nikon mount... is that a factor in Nikon not wanting to do FF?    They are going to have a harder time getting the light into the corner of the sensors at a good angle if they have less room on the mount.  I think this is a key element on why the two companies disagree, and why people who do not shoot a FF canon camera think the problem is a real problem.   It might actually be a problem for Nikon.

[crspe]

The new dpreview review of the D200 shows some of the pointless nature of putting more megapixels into the 30D.   Barely any difference from 8->10->12mp going from 20D -> D200 -> D2x

Note however that dpreview did not claim that there was barely any difference from 8->12MP! It is almost always the case that from one generation to the next, the difference is small. Just because there is barely any difference in going from 6 to 8, from 8 to 10, from 10 to 12 or from 12 to 16 does not mean that it is pointless to put more pixels on a camera - you would notice the jump from 6 to 16.

So please canon - keep adding mp, keep improving the lenses!

[BJL]

Looking at pictures of the 30D with a 50mm lens and a D200 with a 50mm lens the Canon mount looks enormous compared to the Nikon mount... is that a factor in Nikon not wanting to do FF?    They are going to have a harder time getting the light into the corner of the sensors at a good angle if they have less room on the mount.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is no reason to think that the slightly narrower Nikon lens mount would cause "sensor vignetting" due to the angle of incidence of light on the sensor with 35mm format DSLR's. In fact, Nikon F mount probably has less risk of this than Canon EF mount.
- Kodak used Nikon mount on 35mm format DSLRs with no reported sensor vignetting problems.
- Nikon and Leica R lenses have been used on Canon 35mm format DSLRs with no reported sensor vignetting problems (Leica R mount is also narrower than Canon EF mount AFAIK.)
- The key factor in sensor vignetting due to angle of incidence is the exit pupil height; lower being worse. The lowest exit pupils in the 35mm format world are apparently in some Canon EF wide-angle lenses, because the EF mount is closer to the focal plane than other mounts like Nikon's, which allowed Canon to use simpler, less retro-focus designs for its wide-angle lenses. So ironically, sensor vignetting problems would if anything be worst for Canon EF lenses!

Apparently, sensor vignetting is not very significant even with Canon 35mm format DSLR's, so thew whole issue has probably been greatly exaggerated all around, except perhpas in extreme cases like with shift lenses.

[Slough]

There is no reason to think that the slightly narrower Nikon lens mount would cause "sensor vignetting" due to the angle of incidence of light on the sensor with 35mm format DSLR's. In fact, Nikon F mount probably has less risk of this than Canon EF mount.
- Kodak used Nikon mount on 35mm format DSLRs with no reported sensor vignetting problems.
- Nikon and Leica R lenses have been used on Canon 35mm format DSLRs with no reported sensor vignetting problems (Leica R mount is also narrower than Canon EF mount AFAIK.)
- The key factor in sensor vignetting due to angle of incidence is the exit pupil height; lower being worse. The lowest exit pupils in the 35mm format world are apparently in some Canon EF wide-angle lenses, because the EF mount is closer to the focal plane than other mounts like Nikon's, which allowed Canon to use simpler, less retro-focus designs for its wide-angle lenses. So ironically, sensor vignetting problems would if anything be worst for Canon EF lenses!

Apparently, sensor vignetting is not very significant even with Canon 35mm format DSLR's, so thew whole issue has probably been greatly exaggerated all around, except perhpas in extreme cases like with shift lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It can be 2 to 3 stops or more for a fast wide angle lens wide open on a digital FF SLR resulting in very obvious darkening at the edges. But do that many people shoot a wide angle lens wide open?