Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Andrew Teakle on February 21, 2006, 04:23:38 pm
-
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
-
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 (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.
-
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. :-)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 12.8)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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".
-
Well for those still using D30's you can upgrade to the 30D and the significant other won't suspect a thing.
-
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:
(http://boku.smugmug.com/photos/56758984-M.jpg)
-
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
-
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]
-
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]
-
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.
-
Here's an interview with Canon USA's Director of Media and Customer Relations.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1140633307.html (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.
-
Here's an interview with Canon USA's Director of Media and Customer Relations.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1140633307.html (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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
have we not just found another good reason to use an aps size sensor? way less vignetting. I can use my 50mm f/1.2 wide open on my D70s and see no noticable vignetting (although I'm not running any tests), while when using my F4 for film it's like I'm shooting through a tunnel. Either way I'll probably still head towards a FF sensor.
-
Interesting to still see this sensor size debate still so widely disputed. Don't forget that for the same lens the smaller sensor simply covers a smaller part of the image circle, giving the appearance of longer focal length. With a full-frame sensor you get the same effect by cropping to a smaller size. I haven't done the arithmetic to see what pixel count is needed to end up with the same number of pixels, but you get the point...
One thing to also bear in mind, is that the DOF you're getting is the 'full frame' DOF. This means that for creative control you need to use correspondingly wider apertures with the 1.6 sensors to get the same effect. This is turn makes greater demads on the quality of your lens.
-
I believe a 5D cropped down to 1.6 provides a 5mp image.
-
I believe a 5D cropped down to 1.6 provides a 5mp image.
Yes, just DID do the arithmetic and you're quite right. So the pixel density on the 30D is far greater (by a factor of 1.6). It has more pixels per mm than the Ds2.
-
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58834\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ben, I agree with you on this subject, with a few exceptions. I feel like I give up something too when shooting my 24-70mm. I feel like I give up too much in the low end, and don't gain enough in the high end. I'd much rather have a true 24-70mm. However, when using my 70-200, I really feel like I gain enough to make a statement about the 1.6 zoom. If I buy the 5D I will probably be buying a longer lens. I do some photography where distance shooting is a must. Am I a bird photographer, a plane, a rocket or wildlife shooter?? No. When I shoot from a distance at a marina at dark, for instance, I need all of the zoom I can get. I have to stand on the concrete and shoot to the crab boats where men are working on them (the docks are constatly moving). Sometimes they're 100 yards out. Thus, going from 200mm to 320mm with the 20D is excellent--and at 2.8 if I need it shooting at ISO 100.
-
have we not just found another good reason to use an aps size sensor? way less vignetting. I can use my 50mm f/1.2 wide open on my D70s and see no noticable vignetting (although I'm not running any tests), while when using my F4 for film it's like I'm shooting through a tunnel. Either way I'll probably still head towards a FF sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59024\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nasty. When I shoot wide open with my 24-70L I see NO vigenetting on my Canon 20D, nor on my wide angle 17-35L.