Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: tshort on October 02, 2005, 09:22:30 pm
-
Inasmuch as I am starting "from scratch", in terms of building my 35 mm digital system, I am free to to choose either Nikon or Canon.
All the buzz has been about Canon for quite a while, due to their full-frame sensor on their 1D series cameras, while Nikon has seemed to refuse to offer anything like that so far.
Let us assume that at some stage that will change, and Nikon will in fact put out something with a full frame CMOS in it.
Forgetting ergos, menu systems, etc, if one were to consider only the quality of lenses each system has to offer, does anyone have any data or opinions based on experience that would make them lean more toward one than the other? My gut keeps telling me that Nikon glass would be better.
On the Canon side, I'm leaning toward the 20D as the "starter" camera, and building my lens selection around f/2.8 L zooms (16-35, 70-200), and maybe the odd prime (50 mm f/1.4). My work is in portraits and documentary/street shooting, with the odd soccer or hockey game thrown in (kid shots - teleconverter).
I don't know as much about Nikon glass in terms of specific lenses, but I'd guess they have lenses that are comparably spec'd. Question is, which would be the better platform, for the long haul? Any thoughts??
-
You can't go wrong with either. I go on a number of photography trips each year and both are quite prevalent.
I switched from Pentax K1000 film about 6 years ago to Canon. I worked with a camera shop and for me I liked the feel of the Canon in my hands better than others. I now have a full complement of film/digital and numerous lenses.
-
You can't go wrong with either. ...
I switched from Pentax K1000 film about 6 years ago to Canon.
Interesting: I made the same brand change at about the same time because in my price range, Canon had better options than my former brand Pentax or Nikon, and I valued this more than tying myself to a previous brand choice (that is what eBay is for!) A few years later, I looked at the DSLR options in my price range, and this time Olympus fit my particular needs better than Pentax, Canon or Nikon.
Clearly I favor decisions based on needs now and in the forseeable future over a) tying oneself to past choices, or tying oneself to possible but uncertain future needs and directions, or c) reducing equipment choices to seeking one brand to declare as the unique, overall, best at everything and for all photographers.
-
Years back I had been a long time Pro user of Mamiya and Nikon gear. Mamiya for value, Nikon for image. I started out with Minolta - great stuff - but I commanded more respect with an F2 in hand. Plus, Nikon was as good or better than Minolta quality-wise, so it made sense.
When I returned to photography after a long respite, the sole reason for returning was the birth of an affordable DSLR. The only reason I am here is because of the value proposition of the original Digital Rebel. I bought a few L lenses and there was no turning back. If something better comes along I can't afford to switch. It's a system thing. I have no particular religious affiliation with Canon, just a bag full of L glass.
This phenomenon shall hereafter be known as the "glass handcuffs".
-
I think you'll find both Canon and Nikon glass to be very capable. I was a long time Nikon shooter and switched to Canon (20D) and L Glass and the system was excellent in terms of use and quality. The 20D crop factor doesn't work well with the range of the L glass although there are EFS lenses to make up the wide angle - the viewfinder can be like a tunnel view too although I found it to be fine. I swapped back to Nikon (D2X) for the ergonomics and the price/performance vs adding a 1DsII. The DX factor is pretty much irrelevant to me personally for my tpe of shooting but consider that for the same price as a 1DsII body you can get almost a complete Nikon system of D2X, 17-55DX and 70-200 VR and for just a little more you can include a 12-24DX. You'll also notice the difference in the sheer tonnage of your photo bag too!
It will be interesting to see if Nikon feel enough pressure to go full frame at some point. Indications so far have been that they are comitted to the DX factor but who knows ... If you lack a glass legacy then your choices are great at this time with either vendor. I'd be cautious of going outside of these two if longivity/resale of the system is a concern. (this isn't to say that non-Canon/Nikon systems aren't equal in terms of performance/quality - before someone flames me!).
-
One thing to be careful of is the lenses made specifically for the 20D. The won't work on full frame cameras, and then you're really stuck. The problem as you state it, is taht you want thet 17mm wide angle, and you can't get it with teh 1.6 crop.
The trade off, of course, is that my 70-200 is effectively 112 to 320. With ony a 1.4 extender, its 600mm! That's a cheap 600MM tele. I mean with teh extender, I have a 112 to 600mm possibility. Nice.
-
One thing to be careful of is the lenses made specifically for the 20D. The won't work on full frame cameras, and then you're really stuck. The problem as you state it, is taht you want thet 17mm wide angle, and you can't get it with teh 1.6 crop.
The trade off, of course, is that my 70-200 is effectively 112 to 320. With ony a 1.4 extender, its 600mm! That's a cheap 600MM tele. I mean with teh extender, I have a 112 to 600mm possibility. Nice.
That 200mm becomes an effective 448mm lens with a 1.4 convertor and a 1.6 crop factor.
200 x 1.4 x 1.6 = 448
-
One thing to be careful of is the lenses made specifically for the 20D. The won't work on full frame cameras, and then you're really stuck. The problem as you state it, is taht you want thet 17mm wide angle, and you can't get it with teh 1.6 crop.
The trade off, of course, is that my 70-200 is effectively 112 to 320. With ony a 1.4 extender, its 600mm! That's a cheap 600MM tele. I mean with teh extender, I have a 112 to 600mm possibility. Nice.
That 200mm becomes an effective 448mm lens with a 1.4 convertor and a 1.6 crop factor.
200 x 1.4 x 1.6 = 448
Duh.You know what I did wrong. 448 it is.
-
Inasmuch as I am starting "from scratch", in terms of building my 35 mm digital system, I am free to to choose either Nikon or Canon.
Now I was in the same position at the end of last year. I decided to go digital. As my old system was Canon FD I was at page 1 again except for a few things: Benbo tripod, Gitzo head, couple of manual flashguns.
Now I have to say I was still pissed with Canon about dumping the FD system and was heavily biased towards Nikon (Never say never again!).
Canon got me back though, why? (just MHO folks)
1) Canon's commitment to full frame sensors.
2) I have the impression that Canon sensors are ahead of the game compared to Nikon in terms of noise performance.
3) Because of introducing the EOS the Canon lens range semes to be more coherent in terms of performance and compatibility.
4) Nikon's higher end optics with the equivelent of USM seem to be more expensive.
I tried the look and feel of both manuafctures after downloading and reading the manuals so I knew what to look for. Both feel good. Good points and bad points on both.
In the end they both make excelent kit that will produce good results. If the full frame issue is not important and you think the imaging technology is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other and the handling is equivelent then try the below.
I suggest you work out a strawman system of a body, all the lenses you might need for a basic system, add in flashes and any other Canon/Nikon bits that are essental and look at the whole price/weight.
-
the viewfinder can be like a tunnel view too although I found it to be fine.
I quite like the viewfinder as I have glasses. Even with the smaller viewfinder I have trouble seeing 100% + readout.
However I always managed withthe old film FD viewfinders so I wont say no to the next iteration of the 5D.
-
1) Canon's commitment to full frame sensors.
...
3) Because of introducing the EOS the Canon lens range semes to be more coherent in terms of performance and compatibility.
On item 1), I am puzzled about buying a Canon in 1.6x format because of their commitment to another, larger format, especially since that commitment leads Canon to not produce top quality fast lenses for the 1.6x format. It seems a bit like buying a Pentax 35mm film SLR because Pentax has a commitment to medium format film cameras, with its best quality lenses being mainly for MF: usable on 35mm with adaptors, but with a big crop.
Item 2) also puzzles me: Nikon seems to have the more coherent, compatable lens approach, single-mindedly developing all of its new lenses around the needs of a single format, DX or "16x24mm". Even the new Nikon 200mm f/2 was clearly designed and introduced primarily for the needs of DX format DSLRs, even though it is also usable on their 35mm film cameras. (I suppose the Olympus E system has the greatest coherence, with every lens design optimized for the same format.)
-
Wait for the new, soon to be released, Nikon D200.
-
T-short, I don't think one can make a general case that either of these firms systematically produce better lenses than the other. Each has excellent, very good, good and passible lenses. It depends on the individual lens, whatever the brand name. So you can't select a system on that basis.
I had to think hard about what to buy also when converting from film a year ago. It can be confusing so the best advice I can give is to FIRST decide what factors are most important to you and select accordingly. For me, the key considerations were full-frame (what I see through the viewfinder really influences the photography - but other people may shrug it off, each to his/her own); ruggedness/durability/reliability, high megapixel count for high resolution with room for cropping and superior colour rendition. At that time, the two choices were a used Canon 1Ds and a new 1Ds MK11. I bought a used 1Ds - it is enough for me every which way, and was half the cost. If I were doing it today, I would buy a Canon 5D hands down. It is full frame, lighter weight, seems very well-made and the image quality is superb. OK, it lacks various features of the 1 series and isn't built like a brick s--t-house, but depending on one's needs and taste, a very attractive proposition. It is price-competitive with Nikon D2X, also an excellent camera, but not full-frame.
You ask about the long-haul. There is a big debate about whether full-frame or reduced-frame sensors will prevail over the long haul. One learns fast with digital equipment that there is no such thing as the long haul. Everything is obsolete within a year or two. Doesn't mean you can't keep on successfully using what you buy this year for years to come - it is just superceded - that's all. I have no intention of changing my camera any time soon. I think technical progress and new models in both reduced-frame and full frame sensors will be with us for years. And new formats may well emerge too. So forecasting which platform is likely to endure longer is both futile and unnecessary.
Try things in the shop and see what you like best based on your criteria.
-
1)
On item 1), I am puzzled about buying a Canon in 1.6x format because of their commitment to another, larger format, especially since that commitment leads Canon to not produce top quality fast lenses for the 1.6x format. It seems a bit like buying a Pentax 35mm film SLR because Pentax has a commitment to medium format film cameras, with its best quality lenses being mainly for MF: usable on 35mm with adaptors, but with a big crop.
I would say that Canon will go full frame only for the future, unles any of you mroe experienced people know a reason why they would not. I mean after economies ofe scale kick in, which they are already, the price diffrence between a full and medium sensor will be negligible I would think.
Why not just use the Canon lenses at a 1.6 crop? What's wrong with that? If the problem is that you want a sider lens, you could buy the wise that only fits teh 1.6 crop. I don't know what you mean when you say "lack of fast top quality lenses for the 1.6" when I'm using a 70-200 L f 2.8 IIS lens with my new 20D. You can use any top quality lens you want, but yeah you get more zoom with it. That's a quality lens and it's fast too, and it fits full frame. Of course it's 112 to 320. but ok, so what?
Aside from a bigger sensor producing better quality mages, negligible again compared to the 20D, why not get free zoom, invest in the one wide angle lens built only for 1.6 crop, and there you go? If you go full frame, you are ony out one lens, which I will buy from you for 50% off
I'm new to all of this, so I may be missing things.
-
T-short, I don't think one can make a general case that either of these firms systematically produce better lenses than the other. Each has excellent, very good, good and passible lenses. It depends on the individual lens, whatever the brand name. So you can't select a system on that basis.
I had to think hard about what to buy also when converting from film a year ago. It can be confusing so the best advice I can give is to FIRST decide what factors are most important to you and select accordingly. For me, the key considerations were full-frame (what I see through the viewfinder really influences the photography - but other people may shrug it off, each to his/her own); ruggedness/durability/reliability, high megapixel count for high resolution with room for cropping and superior colour rendition. At that time, the two choices were a used Canon 1Ds and a new 1Ds MK11. I bought a used 1Ds - it is enough for me every which way, and was half the cost. If I were doing it today, I would buy a Canon 5D hands down. It is full frame, lighter weight, seems very well-made and the image quality is superb. OK, it lacks various features of the 1 series and isn't built like a brick s--t-house, but depending on one's needs and taste, a very attractive proposition. It is price-competitive with Nikon D2X, also an excellent camera, but not full-frame.
You ask about the long-haul. There is a big debate about whether full-frame or reduced-frame sensors will prevail over the long haul. One learns fast with digital equipment that there is no such thing as the long haul. Everything is obsolete within a year or two. Doesn't mean you can't keep on successfully using what you buy this year for years to come - it is just superceded - that's all. I have no intention of changing my camera any time soon. I think technical progress and new models in both reduced-frame and full frame sensors will be with us for years. And new formats may well emerge too. So forecasting which platform is likely to endure longer is both futile and unnecessary.
Try things in the shop and see what you like best based on your criteria.
OK Mark, I thought the same thing when I was doing research into my 20D.
This is a BIG misunderstanding: What you see in the viewfinder isn't what you get. Yeah, it is, except for maybe 3 percent. And that is because the viewfinder is a 97% or something like that viewfinder. The crop factor doesn't have anything to do with the viewfinder. It simply adds x1.6 to your bottom and top focal. Technically, I may be wrong here, but I am looking at a picture I took today, and I know what it looked like in the viewfinder because I had real world lines I was using for zooming. I can't tell the difference. What I see in the viewfinder is what I get on screen.
But try it yourself. Take you CF card into a shop and snap some pictures. Then go home and look at em.
-
DW, I wasn't saying that you don't get what you see through a "cropped-sensor", You do. All you need to do is look through the viewfinder of a 5D and a 20D side by side and you will immediately see the point I was making. In both cases you'll capture pretty much exactly what you see, sure enough, but the distinction is about how you see what you see. The 20D is an excellent camera and I was tempted to buy one myself last year, but seeing that large bright image through a full frame viewfinder (e.g.1Ds, and now 5D) does things for my relationship with the subject matter that I don't get when I look at the comparatively small and cramped view through a viewfinder related to a cropped sensor. (It is almost akin to the shot of adrenilin we got some decades ago when SLRs hit the market and you compared that viewfinder image with what you got from most rangefinders.) As well, I know for fact I am far from the only one to experience this. It is not scientific, it's psychological, but that doesn't make it any less important a consideration when deciding what to buy.
-
Mark's comments remind me of my view camera days. After some years of using a 4x5, I finally got an 8x10, and suddenly just looking at the ground glass was a pleasure -- because the image was now full-sized! The feeling was like "Wow! I don't even need film any more. I can just go around looking at things on the ground glass."
Now that I really don't use film anymore, I do love my 10D. But I really lust after that 5D!
Eric
-
DW, I wasn't saying that you don't get what you see through a "cropped-sensor", You do. All you need to do is look through the viewfinder of a 5D and a 20D side by side and you will immediately see the point I was making. In both cases you'll capture pretty much exactly what you see, sure enough, but the distinction is about how you see what you see.
Most of the viewfinder difference can be layed at the feet of cost cutting. The viewfinder of my D70 just can't compare to my D2x. Its night and day in comparison but both are Dx sensored cameras.
Bob
-
a) I would say that Canon will go full frame only for the future, unles any of you mroe experienced people know a reason why they would not. I mean after economies ofe scale kick in, which they are already, the price diffrence between a full and medium sensor will be negligible I would think.
Why not just use the Canon lenses at a 1.6 crop? What's wrong with that? If the problem is that you want a sider lens, you could buy the wise that only fits teh 1.6 crop. I don't know what you mean when you say "lack of fast top quality lenses for the 1.6" when I'm using a 70-200 L f 2.8 IIS
On point (a), I have already stated often my reasons for being very skeptical about those huge 24x36mm sensors every being price competitive with the ones of less than half the area used with formats like DX and Four Thirds. The 5D might already be achieving most of the available economies of scale, and still costs $2,000 more than the 20D, $2,700 more than entry level DSLR's.
The price gap to "most affordable 24x36mm" has only shrunk from $3,000 three years ago when Kodak and Canon released ther 24x36mm DSLRs: then it was $5,000 for the cheapest 24x36mm, the 14/n, compared to $2,000 for smaller format DSLR's like the Nikon D100 and Canon D60.
On point (, it is with the shorter focal length lenses specifically for the 1.6x format where Canon lacks "fast top quality lenses".
In particular, for many photographers, the wide to moderate telephoto zoom is the most heavily used lens. Canon's best offering is the 17-85 f/4-5.6 with slow, entry-level apertures, leading for one thing to a distinctly dim viewfinder image in low light. For comparison, a lower price gets the Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 (or the Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5), and at the top of the line, there is the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 (and the forthcoming Olympus 14-35 f/2).
Another more specialized Canon 1.6x lack is 180º fisheye, which Nikon DX has (and Olympus Four will have soon). Canon advertising explicitly uses the lack of such fish-eye coverage with 1.6x as one reason for going to 24x36mm format instead. If I wanted 180º fish-eye, it would instead be a reason to prefer Nikon DX!
-
DW, I wasn't saying that you don't get what you see through a "cropped-sensor", You do. All you need to do is look through the viewfinder of a 5D and a 20D side by side and you will immediately see the point I was making. In both cases you'll capture pretty much exactly what you see, sure enough, but the distinction is about how you see what you see. The 20D is an excellent camera and I was tempted to buy one myself last year, but seeing that large bright image through a full frame viewfinder (e.g.1Ds, and now 5D) does things for my relationship with the subject matter that I don't get when I look at the comparatively small and cramped view through a viewfinder related to a cropped sensor. (It is almost akin to the shot of adrenilin we got some decades ago when SLRs hit the market and you compared that viewfinder image with what you got from most rangefinders.) As well, I know for fact I am far from the only one to experience this. It is not scientific, it's psychological, but that doesn't make it any less important a consideration when deciding what to buy.
AH yes, I know what you mean now. You are right about that. I the 20D viewfinder does seem a bit, er, cramped, to use your words. True, True.
-
a) I would say that Canon will go full frame only for the future, unles any of you mroe experienced people know a reason why they would not. I mean after economies ofe scale kick in, which they are already, the price diffrence between a full and medium sensor will be negligible I would think.
Why not just use the Canon lenses at a 1.6 crop? What's wrong with that? If the problem is that you want a sider lens, you could buy the wise that only fits teh 1.6 crop. I don't know what you mean when you say "lack of fast top quality lenses for the 1.6" when I'm using a 70-200 L f 2.8 IIS
On point (a), I have already stated often my reasons for being very skeptical about those huge 24x36mm sensors every being price competitive with the ones of less than half the area used with formats like DX and Four Thirds. The 5D might already be achieving most of the available economies of scale, and still costs $2,000 more than the 20D, $2,700 more than entry level DSLR's.
The price gap to "most affordable 24x36mm" has only shrunk from $3,000 three years ago when Kodak and Canon released ther 24x36mm DSLRs: then it was $5,000 for the cheapest 24x36mm, the 14/n, compared to $2,000 for smaller format DSLR's like the Nikon D100 and Canon D60.
On point (, it is with the shorter focal length lenses specifically for the 1.6x format where Canon lacks "fast top quality lenses".
In particular, for many photographers, the wide to moderate telephoto zoom is the most heavily used lens. Canon's best offering is the 17-85 f/4-5.6 with slow, entry-level apertures, leading for one thing to a distinctly dim viewfinder image in low light. For comparison, a lower price gets the Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 (or the Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5), and at the top of the line, there is the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 (and the forthcoming Olympus 14-35 f/2).
Another more specialized Canon 1.6x lack is 180º fisheye, which Nikon DX has (and Olympus Four will have soon). Canon advertising explicitly uses the lack of such fish-eye coverage with 1.6x as one reason for going to 24x36mm format instead. If I wanted 180º fish-eye, it would instead be a reason to prefer Nikon DX!
Fish eye lens is correct, from fuirther reading and talking with my ffeind here where I live. However, are you saying that the 20D does --or Cannon -- not have a fast medium lens no matter what? That is really a bummer if so.
-
Nikon for the flash system and a AI Servo switch. I started with Canon (AE-1) and progressed through with it and now, although I did give some serious thought to the D2X, decided that FF was the better and cheaper option than changing over systems.
-
However, are you saying that the 20D does --or Cannon -- not have a fast medium lens no matter what? That is really a bummer if so.
If you want a "standard" zoom lens to use with 1.6x format, giving wide coverage in that format comparable to the now standard 28mm in 35mm format, the Canon choices are clear:
- 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 EF-S
enty level kit lens
- 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS EF-S
stabilized and according to some optically good, but still small maximum apertures, equivalent to f/6.4-8.8 in 35mm format as far as minimum DOF and amount of light delivered to the sensor and viewfinder.
- 17-40 f/4 L EF (so works with 35mm format too)
high quality (the only "L" option), but small zoom range and smallish maximum aperture: equivalent to f/6.4 in 35mm format.
As I have mentioned before, Canon seems to be deliberately limiting themselves to only "mid-level amateur" in its EF-S lens offerings. My guess is that this is to strengthen their case that if you are committed to Canon and want a good array of high quality lenses, you must pay the premium for a 24x36mm format DSLR. Along with Nikon DX and Olympus 4/3's, even Pentax DA DSLR lenses offers more than Canon in some ways: Pentax has a 16-45 f/4 DA standard zoom and one of the very few wide primes specially for DSLR formats, the 14mm f/2.8 DA.
-
Fish eye lens is correct, from fuirther reading and talking with my ffeind here where I live. However, are you saying that the 20D does --or Cannon -- not have a fast medium lens no matter what? That is really a bummer if so.
What's a medium range? The excellent 16-35/2.8 is reasonably fast. That becomes a 26-56/2.8 on a 20D. Quite a useful range I would have thought. Wider than that and the choices are slower lenses with the widest being the EF-S 10-22mm. An alternative would be the Sigma 12-24mm. Both are a little disappointing but fair value at the price.
I think what BJL is getting at, there are no high quality, fast, wide angle lenses designed specifically for the Canon APS-C cameras, as there are for the Olympus 4/3rds cameras, for example.
This state of affairs seems to imply that Canon has not made up its mind about the long term viability of the APS-C format.
-
... the 20D viewfinder does seem a bit, er, cramped, to use your words.
One solution I hope for with smaller format DSLR viewfinders is clip-on magnifiers: about 1.4x or less would bring image size up to what we are used to with 35mm format. VF brightness would suffer, so you could have problems at times with lenses dimmer than about f/4, which is why it is probably not a good idea to add so much magnification permanently in the VF itself.
Small/dim VF images is one reason I would very much avoid lenses dimmer than about f/4 with the smaller DSLR formats.
-
What's a medium range? The excellent 16-35/2.8 is reasonably fast. That becomes a 26-56/2.8 on a 20D. Quite a useful range I would have thought.
Ray,
when was teh last time you say a U$1,400, 1.3 pound, 26-56mm standard zoom?
You are straining credibility in suggesting that teh 16-35/2.8 is a reasonable choice in this day and age. Current practice is about 3x for the high end (14-35, 17-55, 28-70 or 24-70), and more often 4x (14-54, 18-70, 28-105 or 24-105).
Moreso when your adjective "excellent" is only true by the somewhat lower standards expected of an ultra-wide zoom rateh rthen for a standard zoom. The MTF graphs for the 16-35/2.8 look far worse than the far cheaper Olympus 14-54/2.8-3.5, even when one only looks over the 15mm radius of the EF-S image circle. This is of course the hazard of cropping heavily from an ultra-wide design.
-
This state of affairs seems to imply that Canon has not made up its mind about the long term viability of the APS-C format.
I think this state of affairs and other evidence indicates that Canon indeed has made up its mind about its future market niche. It must cost a fortune to design, test and gear-up to manufacture and market a new lens, let alone a variety of them on the same theme. So if you are a manufacturer committed to APS-C sensors and intend that to be your long-term strategy you would put your eggs in that basket and probably not bother developing a 5D.
Technical change and scale economies are bound to keep driving the costs of high quality 24*36 sensors downward. Whether these costs ever converge with those of high quality APS-C sensors isn't the critical point - the critical point is whether Canon believes they will become cost-effective enough to return a profit to Canon at the market volume they would need to justify producing them.
Regarding market volume, a helpful factor for Canon is that they now virtually own the 24*36 digital territory which is attractive to alot of people, and they may also perceive that other forthcoming developments of digital image processing technology will stand their larger, mega-megapixel sensors in good stead. Recalling that they make their own sensors and are heavily involved with various of the big players in the field, they are best positioned to make the strategic judgment call and it looks as if they have.
-
- - - Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L 1200.00 ouch
- - - Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L 1400.00 double ouch
I'm thinking about the 16-35 for my 20D to compliment my 70-200 for now. The gap is then only 56mm. But 1400.00 for that lens is sooooo much money to me. I want it though, I want it, I want it, I want. . . Really, I NEED it more than anything else. I only have one lens right now, and I want the fast lens for shallow DoF. And given the x1.6 crop, I need that range I think to compliment the 70-200 I ahve, which is effectively 112 to 320.
-
Ray,
when was teh last time you say a U$1,400, 1.3 pound, 26-56mm standard zoom?
True! The 16-35 was too expensive for me which is why I opted for the Sigma 15-30 at less than half the price. It's heavier and bulkier, 1 to 1.5 stop slower, but I found my copy to be at least as sharp as the 16-35 I tested in the shop before buying. When I need something just a bit longer, I switch to my excellent and even more excellent value 50/1.8 prime.
What I'd really like to see are some comparison shots of the same scene and equal FoVs between the Olympus E-300 and Canon 20D so we can see just how much better the 4/3rds images are. One can argue endlessly theoretical considerations based on theoretical MTF charts adjusted to compensate for different sized sensors, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I've got no axe to grind; no chip on my shoulder. Show me the evidence :) .
-
I think this state of affairs and other evidence indicates that Canon indeed has made up its mind about its future market niche. It must cost a fortune to design, test and gear-up to manufacture and market a new lens, let alone a variety of them on the same theme. So if you are a manufacturer committed to APS-C sensors and intend that to be your long-term strategy you would put your eggs in that basket and probably not bother developing a 5D.
Mark,
So I take it you believe there are no significant developments of the 20D on the drawing board, such as a 12mp APS-C camera possibly available in a few months or a year's time?
Could be Canon are quite happy with the strategy of providing a cheaper DSLR for beginners and non-professionals, and a upgrade path to the full frame sensor at a reasonable premium, and that's how it should be, in my view, until we reach a point when the additional cost of providing a full frame 35mm sensor is relatively marginal, say 50% more instead of 150% more.
-
Ray,
when was teh last time you say a U$1,400, 1.3 pound, 26-56mm standard zoom?
True! The 16-35 was too expensive for me which is why I opted for the Sigma 15-30 at less than half the price. It's heavier and bulkier, 1 to 1.5 stop slower, but I found my copy to be at least as sharp as the 16-35 I tested in the shop before buying. When I need something just a bit longer, I switch to my excellent and even more excellent value 50/1.8 prime.
What I'd really like to see are some comparison shots of the same scene and equal FoVs between the Olympus E-300 and Canon 20D so we can see just how much better the 4/3rds images are. One can argue endlessly theoretical considerations based on theoretical MTF charts adjusted to compensate for different sized sensors, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I've got no axe to grind; no chip on my shoulder. Show me the evidence :) .
This is a great discussion, all. Between this one and the various threads dwdallam started on the 20D, I'm getting much clearer about my decision.
Note to DWD: instead of a new 16-35 2.8L, I'm looking at a previous version of it - the 17-35 2.8L. That silly millimeter longer translates into half-price on ebay, if you're up for a second-hand lens. Something to think about.
I'm still trying to decide whether to go that direction, and buy a 50 mm (1.4=$320, 1.8=$80 - now there's an expensive bit of f/stop) to fill in between that and the 70-200 2.8; or go with the 24-70 2.8L, and wind up a bit too long on the wide end (at least until I move up to a full-frame rig ;-)
-
Ray, unless they can come up with a 12 MP APS-C model that would be significantly cheaper than a 5D, it wouldn't make sense for them to go that route. But who really knows except Canon? You have to always look at this in terms of the target market. Let us say for sake of simplicity they have four target market niches: snapshooters, amateurs, prosumers and professionals. The 20D and more so the 5D are targeted for the prosumer and professional gadget bags. These are the people prepared to lay out the big bucks for gear. Snapshooters don't count in the range of cameras we are discussing, and prosumers/professionals would be a big commercial risk for an APS-C that somewhat duplicates the 5D. SO they would need to be able to produce a 12MP APS-C cheap enough to excite a large enough segment of the amateur market to make it worthwhile. I wonder.
-
Ray, unless they can come up with a 12 MP APS-C model that would be significantly cheaper than a 5D, it wouldn't make sense for them to go that route.
I am dubious that Canon will produce such a camera, but they might -- it would serve a few different purposes:
a) a high pixel density camera (already, some photographers prefer the 20D to the 1DII for higher pixel density)
a direct competitor for Nikon's D2x and much rumoured D200
c) an interesting upgrade path from the 1.6x crop factor cameras without having to change lenses (the intertia option, maybe)
There's, what, a USD$2000 price difference between the 20D and the 5D? Kinda makes me wonder ... and I expect Canon want interesting announcements for PMA and Photokina next year.
Does Santa give rainchecks?
Giles
-
Giles,
Re (a): not clear the amateur market would pay for 12MP versus 8MP. 8MP is already huge for that segment. Again, depends on the price difference and numbers of up-graders/new consumers they can count on. Risky basis for a commercial decision.
Re (: The 5D is already a direct competitor to the D2X and full-frame to boot.
Re ©: Crop factor may not be a huge issue for that market segment. Risky basis for a commercial decision.
In sum, not sure if I were Canon these factors would convince me - but then again - I'm not Canon :(
-
What I'd really like to see are some comparison shots of the same scene and equal FoVs between the Olympus E-300 and Canon 20D so we can see just how much better the 4/3rds images are[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=50914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since the 20D costs substantially more than the E-300 (or E-500), surely the more relevant question for most people would be whether the 20D images are better, and by enough to justify the extra cost?
In case you continue to misunderstand my position, my general judgement is that the image quality differences between smaller and larger DSLR formats are far less than often claimed, but with only rare occasions of actual advantage to the smaller formats, such as possibly with macro photography. Smaller DSLR formats appeal to me for their balance of ergonomic and cost advantages with good image quality, not some delusion of superior image quality.
-
Well, fwiw, I made my decision right before this board went down - bought the Canon 20D, EF 24-105 f/4L USM IS (ok, so I'm waiting for that one), EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (great to have anyways, and definitely necessary while I wait for the previous one), EF70-200 f/2.8L USM IS, 1.4x TC.
I'm very happy with the gear so far - a bit awkward getting used to autofocus (can you believe it?) combined with autoexposure. "When you press half way, what sticks...?"
I figure as long as I am starting over, and Canon seem to have such a strong commitment to full frame, it makes sense to take advantage of that fact and get the good glass from the start, and when I find myself actually making money in this business, move up to a 1Dxxx body (or 5D).
I also picked up an Elan 7 film body as a backup/film body which I am really liking - the controls, form factor, logic are all very similar to the 20D, so it's not too jarring to switch back and forth.
Already have over 1000 clicks behind me - starting to learn how to work all this stuff.